(j3.2006) Fwd: Call for Comments - On Draft Proposed INCITS Membership Agreement - Comments Due by Friday, September 6, 2013

[Van Snyder]

On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 04:28 -0700, Dan Nagle wrote:
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: "Barra, Lynn" <lbarra at itic.org>
> > 
> > Subject: Call for Comments - On Draft Proposed INCITS Membership
> > Agreement - Comments Due by Friday, September 6, 2013

INCITS recently remarked that it is becoming increasingly difficult for
members to convince employers of the benefit of participation in
standards activities.  Then, almost in the same breath, we have this new
"agreement" from INCITS, which isn't helpful to that cause, and might be
hurtful.

Most of it is reasonable boilerplate, but subclause 2.3, the part about
being bound by future INCITS edicts that have not yet been published,
might be difficult for some employers, especially governments or those
funded by governments.  It might be easier for such employers to join
the agreement if the "no refund" clause is amended to except resignation
resulting from unilateral INCITS changes to the agreement, perhaps
stipulating pro rata refund in those cases.

Alternatively, a new membership agreement should be affirmed when yearly
fees are paid, and the agreement should not include a provision to add
unilateral conditions during the year.

-- 
Van Snyder                    |  What fraction of Americans believe 
Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov       |  Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.