Well, the "key mark" is still around. As far as I recall, it was based on an agreement sponsored by CENELEC. Unfortunately (in the interest to have less marks on the product) it is meant as a supplement to the CE mark to signify that the manufacturer has done more then self declared but used a accredited agency and standards. The market has not responded well to this new mark and I don't know of any company ever getting one. It could be, that the GS mark is so well established in the european consumer market that any new mark will face a uphill battle. I will see that I get more information for the group. Matthias R. Heinze TUV Rheinland
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russell, Ray Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:05 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Re[2]: Are all these agencies really necessary? Greetings, A few years ago at a NEMKO seminar I attended, there was a presentation on the "key mark". Because it looked like a key and would open doors to all markets. I believe this was a proposal from the IEC. Anyone hear any recent developments on this possibility? I imagine with the CE marking, that the push for something like the key mark was put aside in the EU. Thanks, Ray Russell [email protected] ---------- From: [email protected][SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 5:27 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re[2]: Are all these agencies really necessary? Dan et al, Yes, OM, WM, or any other single mark would be much preferred over the current system. But, let's keep things in perspective. Years back (well, maybe not that far back), it seemed that every counrty had its own unique approval scheme, which included unique standards, requirements and marks based on each country's bureaucratic policies. Now, at least, harmonizing of standards and requirements are generally in place, which is a big step forward from what was. With this being said, universal acceptance of a single globally accepted approval scheme is still years away and will be difficult to achieve due to the human bureaucratic parts of the equation (or until there's a single world government, but we won't go there). I think the USA - EU MRA is a step in the right direction to accomplish this, but I feel that the OM (one mark) idea is still far beyond the MRA once the MRA completes. Wishing a thing to come true may be considered to be a goal. Working to make that wish happen correctly is a means to that goal. Just some of my humble thoughts on the subject. And, of course, comments are invited. Best regards, Ron Pickard [email protected] ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary? Author: Dan Mitchell <[email protected]> at INTERNET List-Post: [email protected] Date: 9/10/98 10:52 AM The OM was just an example for purposes of illustration. A better name for such a hypothetical beast would be World Mark (WM). If you read the earlier thread, you would have read that all the agencies are getting out of hand and that it would be nice to do testing once, then apply for a OM? or WM? and be allowed to sell your product any place in the world Daniel W. Mitchell Product Safety EOS Corp. ---------- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)[SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 10:25 AM To: Dan Mitchell; 'Peter E. Perkins' Cc: PSNetwork Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary? Would someone please explain the OM (Overall Mark)? Thank you Charles Grasso (Captain Hook) EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 [email protected] Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 > ---------- > From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:[email protected]] > Reply To: Peter E. Perkins > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:57 PM > To: Dan Mitchell > Cc: PSNetwork > Subject: Are all these agencies really necessary? > > PSNet & Dan, > > > The OM (Overall Mark) is a good idea that continues to be promoted > by industry, especially multinational businesses. Oh that they had > control > to proscribe it... Remember that the underlying basis for all of this is > a > political issue in that nations want to control commerce in some manner - > and many of the old-time controls have been taken away by treaty (the GATT > Treaty). We work in an arena where the high level politicians tug and > pull > to get their way. We see it in the expansion of the need to have a > certification or mark on the products. Developing nations have figured > out > that they can easily play this game - just adapt the international > standards - ISO/IEC/CISPR, etc. - but demand a local mark of approval. The > country supports a team of technical and bureauocratic personel thru the > tax that you pay to get their bumper sticker. Americans, especially, like > free enterprise = no restraints. Big business promoted the use of a > manufacturer's based mark for Europe (the CE marking), but were not too > happy that there is personal criminal penalty attached to signing the MDoC > and applying the mark. Much of the rest of the world isn't ready for > the > whole potato all at once either. Note the problems that the Japanese and > the Koreans are having trying to reform their old-boy networks to open > their markets and offer opportunity for growth there... I predict that it > will get worse before it gets better... So, look at it as job security, > at > least you're working (which is better than the alternative)... > > > - - - - - > > Peter E Perkins > Principal Product Safety Consultant > Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 > > +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax > > [email protected] email > > visit our website: > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins > > - - - - - > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], or [email protected] (the list > administrators). > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
