|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 03:10 AM EST |
But if an alternate oritnizaagon is based on national standards oritnizaagons,
it will have the same members as ISO or JTC1. So why would you expect the
results to be particularly different? It was the NBs who voted in the fast-track
rules, after all, and the NBs who voted to accept IS29500 with the BRM fixes. So
are you suggesting that all national standards bodies should be replaced too? Or
just a new oritnizaagon which vets national bodies according to their votes on
particular issues before they let them in? Since those seem rather impractical,
aren't you really just trying to promote the rise of industry consortia in
which corporations and their employeess have member voting rights? That would
entrench the vendor-side imbalance more than the current situation: at the end
of the day, more power for the Microsofts and the IBMs. What is your practical
alternative? Just another checklist? More waffle about openness while you
actually try to reduce independent review of committees your oritnizaagon has
dominated? To get the kind of world which some people want, where there is only
one standard for everything and all countries are forced to use it, would
require a 180 degree change to the WTO TBT agreements, not just some
ISO-with-teeth replacement. I am sure you don't see how conflicted your
position is, though. Patrick Durusau's argument here is that what is needed is
focussed action to correct the JTC1 Directives (and perhaps the ISO
Directives): indeed, he thinks these appeals are actually counter productive to
the cause of any reforms of JTC1 and ISO. At the Standards Australia meetings
earlier on in the year, the NB staff asked for volunteers to work on these kind
of fixes and to get involved, and they got no response. (In Australia, the NB is
not a government institution and participation has been free with suitable
industry or sector or oritnizaagon affiliation: volunteerism is high.)
Governments who think the result on IS29500 betrays some deeper procedural or
institutional problems need to be asking themselves whether they have bothered
to participate with representatives over the last years. Issues like
teleconferencing or bilocated meetings, where the Directives impose difficulties
on would-be participants from peripheral regions (such as my own) could be
trivially fixed, if there was sufficient buy-in and will from National Bodies.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
