From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Thu Aug 16 22:41:11 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:37:19 -0400 From: Frank Farance Subject: Re: FW: INCITS-V1: Material related to August 17 Agenda Topic - Category A Liaison with the XML Guild letter ballot In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-Sender: frankscan@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 At 16:26 2007-08-14 -0400, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > > The objection leading to this mandatory second vote may have some > merit. > > While it does seem appropriate that JTC1/SC34 and the XML Guild > > establish a liaison relationship, the proposed Category A > "liaisonship" > > may not be the correct one. > > > > SC34 currently has Category A liaison with OASIS and Ecma. Is the XML > > Guild on a par with them (I am thinking here in the context of whether > > > the XML Guild has their own technical committees working on standards > > and their own accompanying support structures)? Also to be considered > > here is whether the XML Guild should be able to nominate organizations > > > to be JTC1 Registration Authorities, which a Category A can do. > > > > I suspect that the more appropriate liaison category for the XML Guild > > > should have been Category C. > > > > My understanding is that Ecma has a Class A Liaison with JTC1 and that is their basis for making Fast Track Submissions. OASIS is a registered PAS Submitter and that allows them to make PAS Submissions. The additional liaison relationships that these organizations have with SC34 are incidental to these submitter roles. To be precise, an organization might have a liaison relationship at the JTC1 level, and it might also have a liaison relationship at the SC level. For example, IEEE will be a Category A liaison at JTC1, Category A at SC7, and Category A at SC36, but (I believe) they previously had a Category C liaison in SC22 (concerned the POSIX work in SC22/WG15). Likewise, IETF has a Category A liaison with SC6 and Category C liaison with SC22(?). While it is true that a Category A relationship permits ECMA to fast-track standards at the JTC1 level, if they have a liaison relationship with SC34, then it permits ECMA to send people to SC34 meetings and permits ECMA to send documents to SC34 and its WGs. (I don't know if SC34 has a liaison relationship with ECMA and, if one exists, what category it is.) Regarding the XML Guild (which I presently know little about and I expect to be informed), the comments above (from whom?) suggest that if XML Guild were to become a Category A liaison, then it would be able to nominate organizations to be JTC1 Registration Authorities. This is *NOT* true. A Category A liaison at the JTC1 level can do this, but a Category A liaison at the SC cannot. Why? Because nomination and approval of a JTC1 Registration Authority is a JTC1-level decision. A Category A liaison *of a SC* is not a member of JTC1, so a Category A liaison of a SC cannot submit documents directly to JTC1, which means they wouldn't be able to make the request (directly) to JTC1. Of course, a Category A liaison to an SC can submit documents to the SC for suggestions on JTC1 Registration Authorities, but the decision on the nomination would be an SC-level decision and, assuming the SC supported the nomination, the SC would submit the nomination to JTC1 for approval. Generally, the main practical distinction between a Category A liaison and a Category C liaison is that the Category C liaison is intended to have limited scope in its work, typically confined to 1-2 WGs or a small number of projects within a WG. This is what is meant by "questions" in the wording for Category A. A "question" is in the ITU sense, e.g., a project, topic, study area, or technology area: Category A liaisions .... participate actively in the work of JTC 1 or its SCs for most of the questions dealt with by the committee. Thus, a Category C liaison deals with few "questions". Another practical distinction between Category A and Category C concerns whether or not the liaison organization has the expertise and willingness to provide input at a "management level", i.e., the general policy topics at the SC-level. Generally, Category A liaison relationships provide good value because the relationship is balanced and intended to serve both parties. Although JTC1 committees see the liaison relationship from the perspective of granting a right for outsiders to participate in the work of an SC or WG, the liaison relationship is reciprocal, which means that SC34 participants would have the right to participate in the liaison organization at the same level of participation (e.g., a management level for a Category A relationship). I remember a case in another SC where a consortium wanted a Category A liaison with the SC, but they understood that it also implied a reciprocal relationship with the consortium's executive board: the SC had the right to send a delegation to their executive board meetings, had the right to receive documents from the consortium, and had the right to participate in all of the consortium's activities, yet the SC participants did not have to pay the consortium's membership fees (which were about $35-50K per member). So the value goes both ways. The above is just some background. I'd like to hear more about the XML Guild tomorrow so that I can be better informed. -FF ______________________________________________________________________ Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605 mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com Standards/Products/Services for Information/Communication Technologies