The
SC19 meeting in Berlin, which took place on March 12, 1998, dealt
with a number of issues, including ISO 11784 and ISO 11785. Item
no. 6 on the agenda was a report by the Chairman of WG3, Mr. Wim
Wismans, on the current status of the standard. Mr. Wismans was
also reporting on the next generation of the animal ID standard,
giving a short overview of the recent work of WG3 and of future
projects.
Several documents submitted
by WG3 participants to SC19 were made available to attendees of
the SC19 meeting. They included letters by AFNOR, Standard Australia,
Standards New Zealand and Gosstandart of Russia, as well as ISO
document N125 concerning the request for suspension of ISO 11784
and 11785.
After Mr. Wismans finished
his report, the Chairman of SC19 stated that Standards New Zealand
and Standards Australia had not submitted the previously announced
request for suspension of the standards and return of the same to
WG3 for review, for which reason no action was required for the
time being. At this point, the representative from Gosstandart of
Russia requested permission to address the meeting. The Gosstandart
representative stated that, although New Zealand had not yet submitted
its formal request, Russia had, and that Russia's request should
be reviewed by SC19 at this time. Then the representative from Standards
New Zealand stated that Standards New Zealand and Standards Australia
had created a joint working group (IT28) to address the concerns
previously announced by these two organisations to SC19 and the
ISO. He stated that the topics were still under discussion and that,
because of the short time between the WG3 meeting in Stockholm and
the SC19 meeting in Berlin, the document could not be prepared for
submission to SC19. He stated that nevertheless, the issues are
still being formulated by IT28 and definitely will be provided to
SC19 and the ISO.
At this point, Dr. Josef
Schuermann of Texas Instruments intervened to question the credentials
of the official representative of Standards New Zealand, and to
question whether the latter was entitled to make any representations
on behalf of Standards New Zealand and Standards Australia.
The representative of Standards New Zealand stated that he at no
time has presumed to speak on behalf of Standards Australia. The
Chairman of SC19 has called Dr. Schuermann to order.
The documents made available
to members of SC19 were discussed at this point. Among these was
The Chairman of SC19 stated
that the "Joint Statement" letter was submitted out of
context. Nevertheless, he has allowed Dr. Schuermann to read aloud
the document, in which the signing manufacturers (some of whom are
currently selling ISO 11784/85 compliant transponders, and some
of whom, while not yet doing so, are on record as intending to do
so in the future) are announcing that they are not willing to work
on improvement of the standard, as demanded by some national standard
setting organisations and major user groups.
The representative of Standards New Zealand thereafter, in his capacity
as participant in IT 28, expressed his grave concerns regarding
ISO 11784/85 on behalf of IT28 (which includes representatives of
numerous user groups in New Zealand and Australia which together
represent some 220 to 240 million head of livestock). He forcefully
expressed that these organisations had stated a desire to have a
truly international standard that will work on a global basis, not
merely a regional basis. He emphasized that even if a few national
standards organisations state that they are entirely satisfied with
the standards, the concerns of the other countries must be accommodated.
The representative of Polish
Standards stated that his organisation's perception was that there
were serious difficulties with the standard. He pointed out that
major objections were the complexity of the standard (inclusion
of both HDX and FDX in the standard); the uniqueness of code; the
standard does not allow for backward compatibility with transponders
presently being used in Poland in the target applications.
Thereafter, the representative
of Swedish Standards has suggested that it may be appropriate to
return the standard to WG3 for review, which idea was declined by
the Chairman of SC19. The reason stated was that an official requirement
to do so had not been submitted by Standards Australia or Standards
New Zealand. The representative for Standards New Zealand announced
that it was his understanding that the official request was to be
submitted upon conclusion of deliberations by IT28, in which Standards
Australia and Standards New Zealand are participating, and that,
however, an official request had in fact been submitted by Gosstandart
of Russia. He stated that IT28's meeting was scheduled for mid April.
The response to this was
that the request has not been presented on the special ISO form
for such requests and that the process for such submissions is known
to the national standards organisations. At this point, after a
spirited debate, the group could not determine if such a form could
be made available during the meeting. The form was in fact produced
later in the meeting.
After the ensuing break,
the representatives of Standards New Zealand and Gosstandart each
announced that they had made inquiries as to whether the form could
be completed and submitted for a vote during the present SC19 meeting
in Berlin. Mr. FranÁois Abram, Technical Programme Manager,
Standards Department, ISO, apparently did not make a binding statement
concerning the applicable voting procedure - whether only SC19 member
nations would participate in the vote or whether all ISO member
nations would be voting. However, it was determined that ISO, upon
receipt of the request for the suspension of the standards on the
correct form, will circulate a request for vote on the subject among
its (members).

Home
For
information and questions please contact: Info@EIDLtd.com
|