George, I am not offended, since I would never assume that anyone in this group would deliberately desire to do so. I just felt that you may have been making certain assumptions not borne out by history. We very often do that when we don't know or don't understand the background.
For example, I always thought that it was a perfectly ridiculous idea to require that all equipment falling under the scope of IEC 950 should be double insulated, as pushed by certain Nordic countries many ages ago. Until--- until it was pointed out to me that certain Nordic countries have a heck of a time finding a reliable ground connection in permafrost. I no longer think that this is a ridiculous idea;-- I am just grateful that we still have choice in IEC 60950. Tania Grant, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group ---------- From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 6:07 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Tania, I did not mean to offend anyone, but trying to clarify someone's understanding. Yes, MANY countries say they use nearly the same IEC 60950. However, getting a product approved in some of these is far more difficult than in others. This is what triggered the discussion, i.e. the costs associated with long, tedious approvals. By "dealings" with the Western world, I mean, for example, how many ITE products were approved for import to Russia during the period when relations were somewhat strained? I deal every day with people in Moskow, Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, etc. and I do know what their countries have gone through, and where they are now. Most are well on their way to regaining the prominent places they had in the global economy before WW II. Actually, the GOST process is probably more stable and understood than many others, e.g. China CCIB/CCEE. My comments were not intended to be political, but what the average product safety/EMC professional confronts in getting numerous global approvals at the present time. Regards, George Alspaugh tgrant%[email protected] on 03/22/2000 05:25:32 PM To: emc-pstc%[email protected], George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Careful, George! I agree with your term "Emerging standards". However, you must not have been familiar with IEC standards until very recently. IEC standards, during the "iron curtain" time, used to be published in three languages on the title page: French, English, and Russian. Then, you had a choice whether you purchased the French/English version, or the English/Russian version, etc. In fact, I noted that when the Soviet block began to disintegrate, did the Russian titles disappear. Could have been a coincidence, or not. I just don't know. What I am saying here is that, as far as the IEC organization is concerned, Russian (in whatever political format) participation was the rule, not the exception. I also don't agree with your historical assessment that "....under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, ..." In fact, the Soviet block countries had a lot of dealings with the Western world, some of which we did not appreciate or want. But these are political issues. And, by the way, I am not and have never been a Soviet "apologist"; however, it does bother me when history is not portrayed correctly. Tania Grant, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group ---------- From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear ??? Perhaps "emerging countries" is not the best terminology. "Emerging standards" may be more appropriate. First of all, there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR. For some 50 years under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now at some point in developing standards to participate in the global market. Russia, Belarus, etc. Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. Many already have well developed approval processes, but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely satisfy at times. The good news here is that several of these very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept the CE marking in the near future prior to membership. Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan have relatively recent certification requirements for ITE. Argentina only recently began to require IRAM certification for ITE. The bad news is that there are still many countries that do not now have certification requirements, but will probably adopt some within the next decade. If you don't like change, Product Safety and EMC are the wrong fields to be in at this time. George Alspaugh ---------------------- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/22/2000 09:04 AM --------------------------- rc%[email protected] on 03/21/2000 08:21:01 PM Please respond to rc%[email protected] To: grassc%[email protected] cc: emc-pstc%[email protected] (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear Charles, REGARDING: ......the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation....... The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual examples? "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" <[email protected]> on 03/22/2000 02:43:36 AM To: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland <[email protected]> cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, Australia&NewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico....... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.........) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the "stock exchange"? If you can, I will change my Job immediately. Rene Charton Kevin Newland <[email protected]> on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM Please respond to Kevin Newland <[email protected]> To: "Maxwell, Chris" <[email protected]>, "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" <[email protected]> cc: (bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products Chris, Just remember that with the exception of Western European countries,USA and Canada, the rest of the world (without being rude) have not really have a solid rule for anything. These countries rules and regulation changes daily (just like stock exchange) without any notice or explanation). This is sadly the real life and we live in it. Thanks Kevin ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
