*Those trying to be more loyal than the king may do well to hear from the National Body from US.
http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/other_documents/other_doc.aspx?menuid=7#Definition Survey on U.S. Standards Policies* On March 16, 2009, Don Purcell of The Center for Global Standards Analysis issued an e-mail survey<http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Survey-US%20Standards%20Policies/Email%20Communication%20from%20Don%20Purcell.pdf>concerning the roles of the private and public sectors in the development of private sector global technology standards. The survey was conducted with the knowledge and blessing of Mike Quear, staff director of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee for Technology and Innovation. In specific response to Mr. Purcell’s two-question survey, ANSI staff developed a proposed response on behalf of the Institute with input from members of the Executive Committee. Following a comment period and a letter ballot, ANSI’s response was accepted by the National Policy Committee (NPC) on May 26, 2009. The final ANSI survey response was submitted to Mr. Purcell on May 29, 2009. How to Take Action *Review ANSI’s response to the survey ( .pdf<http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Survey-US%20Standards%20Policies/ANSI-response-05-27-09.pdf> / .doc<http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Survey-US%20Standards%20Policies/ANSI-response-05-27-09.doc>) * *Read the ANSI Online news item<http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=2206>about the survey * Members of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment community are invited to review the survey questions, take freely from the ANSI response offered above, and submit their own responses directly to Mr. Purcell<[email protected]>to by the *June 30, 2009*, deadline. The survey questions are available as part of Mr. Purcell’s email communication<http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Survey-US%20Standards%20Policies/Email%20Communication%20from%20Don%20Purcell.pdf>with ANSI and are posted below for reference. - Given the impact of Globalization, is there a need to change current United States policies for development of private sector technology standards; i.e., that the private sector will provide the leadership and resources for development of such standards, as necessary, and the government will play a supporting role? If so, what specific changes should be made to roles of the private and public sectors in developing such standards? - Given increased attention to national standards education programs around the world, should the United States increase its support for U.S. standards education programs in order to maintain or enhance its competitive position in the global marketplace? If so, what are your organization’s specific recommendations for increased standards education support in the private, public and academic sectors? Does your organization currently have an existing standards education program? *Definition of “Open Standards”* The term “open standard” has been used recently by some to describe a standard that may be copied, used, and distributed for no fee and/or whose embedded technology is irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis. This definition has created some confusion among standards developers and users generally because it is contrary to the process-based definition of “open” and “openness” long held by ANSI and many other recognized standards bodies who understand the term to describe a collaborative, balanced, and consensus-based approval process for the promulgation of domestic or international standards. This traditional definition is in alignment with the policies of the International Organization for Standardization, the International Electrotechnical Commission, and Annex 4 of the Second Triennial Review of the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. In an effort to offer guidance to the standardization community regarding appropriate use of the term “open” when used to describe a standards development process, ANSI is pleased to offer the following background information. *ANSI IPRPC Critical Issue Paper* In May 2005, ANSI published a Critical Issue Paper that was developed and approved by the Institute’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy Committee (IPRPC). Entitled “Current Attempts to Change Established Definition of ‘Open’ Standards,” the paper asserts that ANSI and many U.S.-based developers of voluntary consensus standards have used the terms “open” or “openness” to characterize a process that has certain important features. These include: - consensus by a group or “consensus body” that includes representatives from materially affected and interested parties; - broad-based public review and comment on draft standards; - consideration of and response to comments submitted by voting members of the relevant consensus body as well as by the public; - incorporation of approved changes into a draft standard; and - availability of an appeal by any participant alleging that due process principles were not respected during the standards-development process. *USPTO Support* At a meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents in March 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) expressed strong support for the private-sector led and public-sector supported U.S. standards system and for the use of standards developed through an open and consensus-based process. Specifically, the document from the USPTO outlined the benefits of open standards, and the USPTO stated “the United States supports and strongly encourages the use of open standards, as traditionally defined, that is, those developed through an open, collaborative process, whether or not intellectual property is involved.” (Emphasis added) The document goes on to say that “Open standards can improve interoperability, facilitate interactions ranging from information exchange to international trade, and foster market competition.” On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:26 PM, H.S.Rai <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, vinay ವಿನಯ್<[email protected]> wrote: > > government through the industry body > > I guess MAIT nad NASSCOM. > > > to “create awareness” on the advantages > > of multiple standards. > > Let us try to convince Govt. to experiment with following to taste > advantage of multiple standards: > > 1) 220V in offices and 110V electricity in houses > > 2) Left hand drive on National Highways and right hand drive on rest > of roads, or still better, males should drive left and female should > drive right. > > -- > H.S.Rai > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > -- jitendra
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
