From Glen.Seeds@Cognos.COM Thu Aug 10 17:53:56 2000 Received: from sotr0085.cognos.com (gatekeeper.cognos.com [205.210.232.66]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA67819 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:53:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Glen.Seeds@Cognos.COM) Received: by sotr0085.cognos.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:53:44 -0400 Message-ID: <650FF9D8BB62D111A48200805FE6469C04998215@sotr0081.cognos.com> From: "Seeds, Glen" To: "'Oblinger James T NPRI'" Cc: "WG15 (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (SC22WG15.1524) FW: (SC22.1440) SC22 Meeting in Nara Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:52:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Thanks for this. In the proposal for widened participation, there is one point that I'm unclear on. I understand that all participants would have an equal voice within the working groups. In practice, I don't think there's anything new about that. When it comes to formal balloting of documents, though, is there anything that changes the existing principle of "one country, one vote"? /glen -----Original Message----- From: Oblinger James T NPRI [mailto:OblingerJT@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil] Sent: August 2, 2000 5:18 PM To: WG15 (E-mail) Subject: (SC22WG15.1524) FW: (SC22.1440) SC22 Meeting in Nara The following message from acting SC22 Chair John Hill was distributed to the SC22 in preparation for the SC22 meeting in Sept. At the WG15 meeting there was a discussion on the 'proposed changes to the JTC1 structure' as this could have an impact on WG15. Any comments you might have on these issues may be circulated within SC22 or provided to your SC22 national committee. Jim Oblinger < mailto:OblingerJT@npt.nuwc.navy.mil > Voice (401) 832-1366 or DSN 920-1366 Fax (401) 832-2130 Code 2233, B1171-2 1176 Howell St. NUWCDIVNPT Newport, RI 02841-1708 -----Original Message----- From: John L. Hill [mailto:John.Hill@sun.com] Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 9:59 AM To: SC22@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22.1440) SC22 Meeting in Nara I am writing this note to inform you of my personal thoughts on the discussion items. As many of you are having meetings to prepare for our meeting in Nara, I hope this note will help you to develop positions. Contributions to the SC22 meeting are welcome and will greatly help us all. There may be a timing mismatch related to the document availability for some of these items. As a result, several of the items may be difficult for you to consider. I have taken the liberty to attach the relevant JTC 1 documents. Many of you will receive the equivalent SC22 documents on these topics within a week. SC Level of Approval of NPs: JTC 1 has approved new rules permitting SCs to approve NPs within their area of work. SC22 needs to develop a set of procedures for this approval. I think this should be the subject of break-out session 1. DIS 16262-ECMAScript: SC22 needs to establish the means by which comment resolution on the DIS ballot can be handled. Maybe establishment of an ad hoc or assignment to a WG are appropriate. Normative Referencing of Specifications Other than International Standards: JTC 1 has extended the trial period. If SC22 has any comments, we need to approve and send a document to JTC 1. Participation in JTC 1 Development Activity: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic Planning approved a recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved by JTC 1, would permit direct participation in WGs and projects by persons outside of NB accreditation. An example is that Organization A could participate in the technical standards development without being accredited by a national body. It seems to me that this has the potential to greatly broaden participation in SC22's technical work. JTC 1 has asked the SCs for comments on this. I think break-out session 2 should address this. Proposed Changes to JTC 1 Structure: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic Planning approved a recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved by JTC 1, would permit a thinning of JTC 1's organization structure. It permits technical groups, such as SC22, to organize however it wishes. There are numerous potential organization structures. Here are a few. There are others: * WGs reporting to SC22 which reports to JTC 1 (in truth, this is no change to today's structure) * Projects reporting direct to SC22 (we have some of these) * WGs reporting direct to JTC 1, rather than to SC22 * Combinations of the three above JTC 1 has asked for comments on how the SCs might implement this. I think break-out session 2 should address this. Funding the JTC 1 Program: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic Planning approved a recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved by JTC 1, would permit development of a mechanism by which the organizations participating directly in the technical work pay their fair share. The thing is, the funding of the JTC 1 and SC secretariats is by national body. Each NB holding a secretariat has its own means of funding the secretariats it holds. By permitting direct participation in JTC 1's technical activities, the direct participants could avoid paying their share. JTC 1 needs some means of getting funds from those direct participants or risk financial disaster for the secretariats. JTC 1 has asked the SCs for comments on how this might take place. I think break-out session 2 should address this. Maintenance Teams: JTC 1 has asked the SCs for comments on a recommendation that the standards maintenance process migrate to a system of maintenance teams. If SC22 has any comments, we need to approve and send a document to JTC 1. JTC 1 Long Term Business Plan: The JTC 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic Planning approved a recommendation to JTC 1 that, if approved by JTC 1, would permit establishment of a standing committee on strategic planning. JTC 1 has asked its SCs for comments. If SC22 has any comments, we need to approve and send a document to JTC 1. Request from IETF: The Chairman of JTC 1 has received a request from the IETF architecture board. The request is for expedited standardization of some items to facilitate multi-lingual, multi-cultural use of the WWW. I, and the JTC 1 chairman, have had discussions with the JTC 1 subgroups whose scopes seem to most closely approximate the request. These include SC2, SC 35, and SC22/WG20. At this time, there does not seem to be clear alignment of the scopes of these groups with the request. SC22 needs to consider how it can contribute to addressing the request. Strategic Planning: Several of these discussion items derive from the recommendations of the JTC 1 Ad Hoc on Strategic Planning. That group approved several very serious recommendations for JTC 1 to address at its next meeting (Tromso, Norway, 11/00). SC22 is among the very few SCs to have a meeting between the time that the requests for input came out and the document submission deadline for the Tromso meeting. In other words, SC22 is in position to give JTC 1 contributions on how the SCs feel about the recommendations. Another aspect of the Tromso meeting of JTC 1 comes to mind. That is, JTC 1 may approve, modify and approve, or disapprove the recommendations. We won't know at the time of our meeting in Nara. SC22 should put in place a plan assuming JTC 1 approves changes like these. SC22 needs to consider establishing an ad hoc group to address SC22's responses to JTC 1's actions. The topics are complex, interrelated and important enough that the ad hoc group will have to meet face to face at least once.