Subject: Resolutions from the ISO-JTC1/IEC 2015 Plenary meeting

From: Khalid Choukri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:41:23 +0100

Dear Colleagues (Convenors of SC35 WGs)

I am just back from the JTC1/IEC plenary meeting , held this year in 
Beijing
I hope to report on that at our next meeting, in particular for the new 
topics on which ISO JTC1 is putting more focus i.e. Internet of Things, 
Wearable Smart devices etc.  and where I argued that "users", 
"interfaces", "accessibility" are persistent key words mentioned by many 
participants and that SC35 is ready to play its role with respect to its 
core mission within these new topics (see the resolutions ;

a) I made, like a few of the other chairs, a quick overview of our plans 
(and business plan in particular about our long-term visions of SC35 
activities), many chairs referred to the official Business Plan and said 
"nothing to add";

b) Before we get to the "Chairs" item on the agenda (item 7.1, agenda is 
ISO/IEC JTC 1 N12834), the UKNB had added item 6.2.3 on the proposed 
agenda that was "UK National Body input on Accessibility Document: JTC 1 
N12731),
in which the "legitimacy" of SC35 was questioned again with respect to 
its role on accessibility (most from Kate Grant and UK/BSI)

I past this contribution here:
> The UKNB believes it is important that responsibility for 
> co-ordinating JTC 1 input to groups such as the SYS-AAL committee and 
> Wearables SG in IEC, and assisted living in ISO is managed in an 
> entity which can gather appropriate comments from JTC 1 experts in 
> various committees (e.g. SC 29, SC 35, and SC 37) and ensure that JTC 
> 1 expertise is employed in such work and not duplicated.
>

I replied that I was very surprised when I read such contribution; that 
in my view it goes against the Resolution 22 of the previous ISO JTC1 
29th plenary meeting in Abu Dhabi.

I stated again that, we have taken actions to put in operation this 
resolution and it is premature to report on concrete results at this 
stage; that the SC35 has already considered this mission and added it to 
its Business Plan  as: [Future revision of 20138-1 “User accessibility 
needs", Formerly JTC 1/SWG Accessibility work ]

I insisted that my arguments from the last year are still valid:
/
/

  * /SC35/WG6 has many of the same participants as have been working on
    the user accessibility needs, and all those who have been currently
    working on them are eligible for being nominated as experts to
    SC35/WG6. /
  * /(While SWG-A has been allowed to include as members people
    nominated by bodies outside ISO, there has not been any active
    participation from such people for a number of years.)/
  * /Jim Carter is the editor of all three SWG-A documents and is  the
    convenor of SC35/WG6 so he is well positioned to aid in making the
    transition between SWG-A and SC35/WG6 where the wider active
    participation in SC35/WG6 will aid in doing a better job of
    developing and reviewing these documents./

and I insisted that such transition is what we see now.

This position has been strongly seconded by the USA and FRANCE delegations.

The UK reply was that nothing is visible from SC35 web site and that the 
liaison reports are not accessible for the experts even if they could 
connect to the AFNOR Livelink.

==> This is probably true, my feeling is that our liaison reports (1) 
are not very formal (and are not drafted in advance as N documents) and 
(2) are not published in advance for outsiders.
==> I promised to improve this very quickly and I suggested to report to 
the next year's plenary on this matter (Hence the resolution 4 of this 
plenary)

actions for all of us:
=> We need to take this very seriously and make sure all our liaison 
officers are aware of this and ask them for intermediate reports 
whenever appropriate
=> make sure that all liaison reports are published according to ISO 
JTC1 timeline as N documents and ensure their accessibility via the 
AFNOR Livelink

Philippe: Can we update the list of liaisons and plan for these to be 
N-documents for our meeting in August
Jim/All: we need to define the best way to pursue this mission and 
report to the plenary
Philippe: I would like to have this "report to JTC1 2016 plenary" on our 
agenda,  prepared and discussed at the Korea meeting pls, with input 
from all.

c) Before the plenary , with Philippe, we realized that my appointment 
for a second term was not discussed in Sapporo and it was too late to 
come up with a resolution for this to be adopted by email; hence the 
suggestion for my nomination for 1 year to be confirmed at the next 
meeting in Korea (resolution 9);

d)during the Chairs' meeting on Thursday,  a few of the chairs, 
including myself, questioned the value of the Business Plans that we 
produce ever year and that look as administrative docs that no one reads 
,   and it was agreed to think of something more useful and 
"operational" , both for the SCs and for JTC1.
We set a small committee to discuss this before end of 2015, I will 
bring this up with you in due time;

Please feel free to share this document (or parts of it) with your group 
and if you think I missed something important or controversial from the 
resolutions, please drop me a word.

Best regards
Khalid

-- 

*************************************************
*Khalid CHOUKRI *
ELRA General Secretary & ELDA CEO
email: [email-masked] ; Web: www.elra.info www.elda.org
Tel. +33 1 43 13 33 33 - Fax. +33 1 43 13 33 30
***************************************************
** *Info on LREC: www.lrec-conf.org *
**************************************************** **

****