Hi All, Mr. Kammerer is absolutely correct in his assertions about minority and women-owned businesses. As a minority, and a woman, and a business that is EDI and EFT knowledgeable and capable and at least able to fill orders for web, EDI and EFT, I would be quite happy to receive any and all of those set-aside contracts that somehow rarely go where originally intended. However, I must warn anyone interested that we do have associates that are Euro, Anglo, and/or male, some of which may or may not meet the rest of the profile presented so eloquently. We never paid any attention to colors or what people look like, but like everyone else, are interested in new business . . . . Thanks for reading, Eleanor Pickron cSoftGroup, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 4/8/00 10:32:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Timothy Mitchell, of Belden Communications Division, told us the story, > at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/msg00657.html, > of how one of his customers wants their orders routed through a minority > or woman-owned business (MWOB). Even though his company will actually > be handling the orders, Timothy wants all EDI documents returned to the > customer to appear as if they were coming from the MWOB. Timothy wants > to know if it makes any difference whether his company's DUNS number is > used in the ISA Interchange Header receiver ID, since he's intercepting > the orders on "behalf" of the MWOB. > > For those readers unfamiliar with American customs and laws, Congress > intended that government contractors "set-aside" a certain minimum > percentage of sub-contracts for the benefit of companies whose ownership > reflects particular disadvantaged groups. Supposedly, this partially > makes up for the historical business advantages enjoyed by white > Protestant guys with good hair and silver temples and who look swell in > golf pants. > > Regardless of the wisdom of such laws, Congress' intent is clear, and > it's our obligation to obey them in good faith. So long as the "MWOB" > is not a dummy shell corporation really controlled by Euro-guys, I > wouldn't think you had anything to worry about when it comes to the ISA. > The interchange and functional groups are merely envelopes used for > routing (regardless that most translators' application logic may be > governed by the ISA sender and receiver), and it's the EDI transactions > contained within that are the legal business documents. Presumably, in > your case, the transaction sets themselves somehow identify the MWOB as > the fulfiller of the order (say, in the N1). > > You will often find answers indirectly at FORESIGHT Corporation's > Resources Web-Page, where we have links to dozens of sites containing > viewable Implementation Guidelines or Specifications (ICs or MIGs); see > http://www.foresightcorp.com/ and select "Resources," then "Guidelines, > Maps, and Documents." Besides actual EDI guidelines, there will often > be Trading Partner Agreements and ancillary documentation which you may > find useful in addressing your query. > > For example, the FORESIGHT "Guidelines, Maps, and Documents" page points > to GISB, the Gas Industry Standards Board; by navigating from their > guidelines page back to GISB's home page, you can come across the GISB > Requests for Standards page at http://www.gisb.org/req.htm. There's an > entry to "Add a new standard or standards language to the current GISB > Electronic Delivery Mechanism standards. The proposed standards address > the use of ISA (Envelope) Sender Identification codes when sending EDI > files." Detail on the request is at http://www.gisb.org/pdf/r97071.pdf, > where it describes the benefit of the proposed change: > > ...the sending and receiving parties are clearly identified > using their own common entity codes (per GISB standards) and > are not required to utilize other party's (i.e., the service > requester's) common entity codes in the ISA envelope > surrounding the transmissions. > > Certainly the entity who is actually requesting or providing > the service (one who has rights under a contract) must be > identified in the body of the communication [the actual X12 > transaction]. Our request goes only to the enveloping and > origination issues. > > This language, submitted by a lawyer, would seem to make the case that a > "third-party" service provider could have their own IDs in the ISA > without contaminating the legal content of the X12 transaction sets > contained within. Whether Belden CD can call itself a "third-party" > service provider is another issue, since they're the clear beneficiary > of the order from the customer. > > William J. Kammerer > FORESIGHT Corp. > 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy. > Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305 > (614) 791-1600 > > Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/ > "Commerce for a New World" ======================================================================= To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
