Engaging stakeholders for ISO national standards bodies

Companion document to:
Engaging stakeholders and building consensus
Guidance for ISO national standards bodies

Download the original guidance document here: ‘Guidance for ISO national standards bodies - Engaging stakeholders and building consensus’

The ISO brochure “Engaging stakeholders and building consensus: Guidance for national standards bodies” provides principles and guidance for how to improve stakeholder engagement in ISO’s International Standards development activities.

This document serves as a companion to the brochure by giving examples of how some national standards bodies (NSBs) have incorporated the stakeholder engagement principles into their working procedures. Its intended audience includes NSBs who may be considering drafting, amending or updating their policies on stakeholder engagement, plus those who are simply interested in seeing what others do.

The NSB policies cited in this document are current as of March 2013. However, NSBs may periodically review these documents and publish new editions. Please check with the NSB in question if you wish to confirm which edition is currently in use.

This document should be considered a work in progress. Further examples will be added as more ISO members provide their stakeholder engagement policies for inclusion. We welcome submission of policies at tmb@iso.org

 

Source documents

The NSB examples given here are taken from documents produced by ISO members. The choice of documents and examples is not intended to point out best practices. Rather, this selection has been made based on the fact that these documents are available in English or French (the two languages of ISO publications), and that they provide examples of different document-types.

List of source documents:

 

Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) - French association for standardization

  1. French Standard, Standardisation and related activities, Activity of the standardisation bureaux, Principles, requirements and indicators, NF X 50-088, December 2009.

This document is a French standard. It specifies the guiding principles of the normative work and describes the requirements with which the French standardisation bureaux must comply. (21 pages)

  1. Règles pour la normalisation française, Partie 1: Instances et procédures de travail.

 

NB. This document is only available in French.
This document complements document 1 (above) and is applicable at the national level. Its intended audience includes AFNOR and its standardization bureaux, as well as other stakeholders in national standards development processes. It is the French national equivalent of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. (57 pages)

 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

  1. ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO, January 2008.

This document outlines procedures for the development and coordination of positions that are representative of U.S. national interests, for the purposes of participation in ISO activities. It covers topics such as: procedures for determining US interest in ISO work; formation and operating procedures of US Technical Advisory Groups; and procedures for appeals. (30 pages)

 

British Standards Institution (BSI)

  1. BSI Standards Publication, A standard for standards – Principles of standardization, BS 0:2011.

This documentis a British standard. It describes how British standards are developed and maintained and sets out the principles of standardization undertaken by BSI. It is aimed at a wide readership – anyone who might have an interest in British Standards – and provides extensive context on European and international standards development processes. (44 pages)

  1. The BSI guide to standardization - Section 1: Working with BSI British Standards, part 2, How do I work with BSI?
  2. The BSI guide to standardization - Section 1: Working with BSI British Standards, part 3, How do committees work?

5 and 6 - BS 0:2011 (number 4, above) is supplemented by the BSI Guide to Standardization. This guide is presented in 7 parts and gives practical information to members of BSI technical committees about standards and how they are developed. It is updated regularly to reflect changes in policies or procedures.

 

Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN)- German institute for standardization

  1. Guidelines for standards committees in DIN German institute for standardization, Berlin (September 2013)

These Guidelines are based on the binding principles of DIN’s Statutes, the DIN 820 series of standards, and the Decisions of the Presidial Board. They apply to all standards committees within DIN, including subcommittees, and describe the structure, tasks, leadership/membership, setting up and dissolution of committees. (17 pages)

  1. Focus on the Future, The German Standardization Strategy: An Update

This document outlines 5 broad strategic goals for DIN and describes the focus points for German standardization. It is based on consultations with leaders in business, politics, research and standardization. (16 pages)

 

Standards Australia (SA)

  1. Standardisation Guide 015: Australian Involvement in International Standardisation, 2013

This guide outlines how Australian interests participate in ISO and IEC international standards development. It includes a good deal of context  - background on the governance of international standardization and the roles of international standards organizations. It also provides information for Australian delegates attending international meetings and describes the roles and responsibilities of national mirror committees. (35 pages)

 

Standards South Africa (SABS)

  1. Standards for standards, Part 1: The development of South African national standards, SANS 1-1:2012, edition 3.

This document is a South African standard. It details the process for the development and amendment of South African national standards, in accordance with the provision of section 23(2) of the Standards Act 2008 (Act No. 8 of 2008). It is not intended to provide detailed internal SABS procedures since these are generally required only by the staff of the SABS Standards Division. (30 pages)

  1. Standards for standards, Part 2: Requirements for the recognition of Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) in South Africa, SANS 1-2:2007, edition 1.

This document is a South African standard. It describes the underlying principles for the recognition of standards development organizations other than Standards South Africa. It refers to participation in the international standards development process. (11 pages)

 

Standards Council of Canada (SCC)

  1. International Standards Development, Canadian Participation in ISO and IEC, CAN-P-7: 2011

This document is part of a series of SCC publications that define the policy and operational requirements for core programs in support of SCC’s mandate. It covers procedures related to all aspects of national mirror committees (establishment, responsibilities, composition, appointment of Chair, etc), leadership roles in ISO/IEC committees, and participation in international meetings. (35 pages + annexes)

 

Standards New Zealand (SNZ)

  1. Standards New Zealand’s Protocol for ISO and IEC Technical Committee Participation, June 2011.

This short document briefly outlines the protocol by which New Zealand interests participate in the international standards development activities of ISO and IEC. It describes the different types of participation, expectations of NZ representatives and protocol for hosting international meetings in New Zealand. (9 pages)

These documents vary significantly in their formats and intended audiences, demonstrating that there are a number of different ways to effectively address the important stakeholder engagement principles outlined in this document.

Note that some of the documents describe stakeholder engagement policies primarily in the national context (although they may also include  references to the international context), while others focus on the international context (they are specifically written to explain how the NSB participates in ISO/IEC standardization activities).

 

Focus on the national context

Perhaps the most formal or official way to address principles related to stakeholder engagement is to include them within national standards. Both BSI and SABS, for example, have produced national standards that set out how British and South African standards, respectively, are developed and maintained (see 4 and 10). AFNOR has included stakeholder engagement principles in an even broader French national standard that specifies the principles and requirements governing the work of the French standardization body (see 1). In all of the above cases, stakeholder engagement is not a main section or heading in the document, but it is addressed indirectly in many places. 

 

Focus on the international context

Alternatively, some NSBs have included principles related to stakeholder engagement in publications that cover all aspects of NSB participation in international standards development in the one document - for example, key definitions, principles, mirror committee establishment and operating procedures, chair and secretary appointment, delegations to international meetings, dispute resolution, and more. Procedures are outlined in detail and the document is designed to be used by people administering or participating in mirror committees and international meetings. While they are not national standards, these are nevertheless formal documents that define policy, processes and operational requirements for the NSB. ANSI, SCC, SA and SNZ have all taken this approach (see 3,10, 12 and 13).

In addition to (or instead of) formal, procedural documents, some NSBs publish what are essentially ‘user guides’. These guides explain in a simpler and more practical way how the NSB operates using bullet points and diagrams instead of text. BSI, for example, has such a guide presented online as a series with 7 parts. Two parts of the guide refer to stakeholder engagement practices and have been used as examples in this document (see 5 and 6). Presenting information about stakeholder engagement in guides can be particularly effective for targeting those outside of the organization, such as members of mirror committees or the general public.

 

Terminology – ‘NMCs’

As stated in principle 3.2P1 of the ISO brochure, “The approach by which an NSB determines its national position is the decision of the NSB”. It follows that every NSB has developed its own procedures for how to engage stakeholders in standards development. While many NSBs may have similar structures in place or follow similar procedures, they do not necessarily use the same terminology.

The concept of what ISO refers to as National Mirror Committees (NMCs) is an example. ISO uses the term NMC to describe a technical committee that is established by the NSB to enable smoother and more comprehensive participation by the NSB in ISO technical activities. The NMC’s role is to gather national stakeholder and expert input so that it can determine the national consensus position. Members of the NMC are then selected as delegates to attend an ISO committee meeting, where they will present and defend the national consensus position. 

Although many NSBs follow this procedure, they do not necessarily use the term NMC and may not refer to NMCs in their procedural or guidance documents. For example, many NSBs take the approach described in principle 3.4P3 – when they already have an existing national technical committee in place for a field where new international projects are started, they use this existing national committee as an NMC. It may therefore be unnecessary to have separate procedures for NMCs in addition to those for national technical committees. For this reason, some of the examples in this document describe procedures that are relevant to national technical committees.

Below is a list of terms (with their definitions) used by the NSBs referenced in this document to describe their national mirror committees, or national technical committees that may play the role of an NMC:

AFNOR: “Commission de normalisation
The French term for a national technical committee.

ANSI: “Technical Advisory Group” (TAG)
“Committees accredited by ANSI for participation in ISO technical activities.”

DIN: “Standards committee
“A standards committee is responsible for national standardization within its area(s) of work and expertise, and also participates in European and international standardization in these areas.

The standards committee supports the implementation of German Standards in its area(s) of work in all relevant aspects of life, and participates in certification activities.”

SA: “National Mirror Committee
“A National Mirror Committee is established to monitor or participate in the work of one or more given ISO or IEC committees.”

SCC: “SCC Mirror Committee
“A technical committee established by SCC to facilitate Canadian participation in ISO and IEC technical activities.”

BSI: “Technical Committee
“The body responsible for a particular area of standards work.”
BSI also refers to the “U.K. mirror committee” as the “National mirror structure to the European/international technical committees, ensuring the formulation of coherent national positions.”

SABS: “Technical committee” (TC)
“National technical committee. Group of representatives that is concerned with standardization, that is responsible for identifying the need for, and the preparation of, South African national standards and other normative and non-normative documents in a defined field and that reflects valid national interests within that field.”

“Mirror Committees”
“When there are active international (ISO and IEC) standardization projects that are of special interest to South Africa, the TC/SC may mirror the work of the international committee. These committees shall also, subject to the approval of the SAC (see also 6.10), mandate delegates to the relevant international
committees. TCs/SCs mirroring international committees are also responsible for commenting and voting on documents circulated by the international committees they mirror.” Relations with, and participation in, international and regional Committees:
Wherever practicable, the committee structure should be aligned with that of the corresponding international or regional standards organization. The degree of liaison with international committees shall
be determined by the national committee and approved by the SAC. In practice, many committees provide input into the development of international standards and subsequently decide to adopt these international standards as South African National Standards.

SNZ: “International review group” (IRG)
“An international review group is a group of individuals who are consulted on documents circulated by the ISO committee in order to establish a NZ position and also to assist Standards New Zealand to select a delegate to represent NZ at meetings.”

Many of the source documents listed above include a section on definitions, where the NSB clearly defines how it uses common terms such as ‘technical committee’, ‘consensus’ or even ‘stakeholder’. These sections can provide a useful reference for any of the terms used in the examples in this document.

 

How to use this document

Sections 1 and 2 in this document are identical to those found in the ISO brochure “Engaging stakeholders and building consensus: Guidance for national standards bodies”. The NSB examples of policies and procedures related to stakeholder engagement are all included in Section 3, which lists the PEG principles.

The title for each example gives the name and relevant section of the source document and also provides a hyperlink to the document itself. By clicking on this link, the example can be viewed in the context of the whole source document.


In recent years, to be responsive to both current and new stakeholder needs and to maintain itself as a highly relevant International Standards developer, ISO has seen its work programme expand and evolve into new subject areas. Compelling challenges for ISO regarding its standards development processes have come with this evolution, as stakeholder expectations of the ISO system are changing.

As a result, the ISO Technical Management Board (ISO/TMB) has formed its Process Evaluation Group (PEG) to investigate the responsiveness of the ISO standards development processes to these changing dynamics. The ultimate intent of the PEG’s efforts is to safeguard the outcomes of the ISO system and to promote the existing value, strength and authority of International Standards and the processes by which they are produced. Indeed, the ISO/TMB agreed that the PEG, in its work, must uphold the commitment of the ISO system to participation via national standards bodies (NSBs), as well as through the consideration of the input received from liaison organizations.

Essentially the PEG has two main tasks :

Task 1
To review the current situation and consider the possibility of alternative models1) of standards development operations and participation in ISO 2).
Task 2
To examine processes for consensus decision-making and stakeholder engagement within national standards bodies (NSBs) and liaison organizations, which may impact the credibility of resulting ISO standards.3).
Please note that this document is a result of the PEG’s pursuit of Task 2 above.


1) It is important to note that, in the majority of cases, the existing ISO model works well, is well defined and is accepted by stakeholders.
2) It is anticipated that the PEG will provide recommendations to the ISO/TMB for action on this task by February 2011.
3) It was anticipated that the PEG would provide recommendations to the ISO/TMB for action on this item by September 2010.


Any discussion of the rationale for PEG Task 2 must begin by recognizing the following important statements made in ISO governance documents:

“ISO members are commit ted to developing globally relevant International Standardsby... Organizing national input in a timely and effective manner, taking into account all relevant interests at national level...”
“ISO parties are committed to... Communicating in a fair and transparent manner to interested parties when work on new standards is initiated and subsequently on the progress of their development...”

ISO Code of Ethics, 2004

“For the ISO work in which they choose to participate, ISO members are expected to organize national consultation mechanisms, according to their national needs and possibilities, which prepare national positions that reflect a balance of their country’s national interests...”

List of Fundamental Principles of the ISO System, 1999

 

“...National bodies have the responsibility of ensuring that their technical standpoint is established taking account of all interests concerned at national level...” From the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1, Foreword, Item C on Discipline

In addition, ISO/IEC Guide 59:1994, Code of good practice for standardization, states the following under clause 6.3:

“At international level, national participation in the standardization process is organized under the auspices of the appropriate national standards body which is the member of the relevant international standards organization.


National members shall ensure that their participation reflects a balance of national interests in the subject matter to which the international standardizationactivity relates.”


Generally, ISO processes and national body engagement have been viewed as successful to result in ISO standards reflecting a double level of consensus – among market players and experts at the drafting stages of the standards, and among countries at the formal voting stages of the standards.

However, recently within some ISO activities there have been some concerns expressed regarding the integrity of ISO national body processes for stakeholder engagement and consensus decision making. The credibility of these national processes is vital to ensure the credibility of the resulting ISO standards and, ultimately, of the ISO brand in the marketplace. It is important to recognize that the ISO standards development process is one that is collectively owned and implemented by ISO and its members in accordance with broadly accepted principles and guidance.

It is important to consider that international and some broadly based regional organizations also make active contributions to the development of ISO standards as recognized liaisons. Therefore, if the credibility
of internal processes of national bodies has an impact on the credibility of ISO standards and ISO itself, then in principle, the same is true for the internal processes of organizations in liaison and their input.

It is for this reason that the PEG has decided to seek input from ISO national bodies and liaison organizations on their internal processes for stakeholder engagement and consensus decision making. The
process for collecting input and summary observations of that input is detailed in Annex A to this document. Through consideration of this input, the PEG has developed the principles and guidance presented in Section 3 of this document.

The WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade has established certain principles for the development of international standards that should be observed when international standards, guides and recommendations are elaborated, to ensure transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, coherence, and to address the concerns of developing countries. The correct reference for the WTO/TBT document providing these principles is Decisions and Recommendations Adopted by the WTO Committee on Technical Barrier s to Trade since 1 January 1995, Annex B. G/TBT/1/Rev.9, 8 September 2008. These principles, especially in relation to transparency, openness, impartiality and consensus, communicate important ideas that, if implemented by standards bodies, contribute to the credibility of the internal processes of ISO national standards bodies and international liaison organizations. Therefore, these ideas have been incorporated in the development of the principles and guidance presented in Section 3 of this document.

One of the unique strengths of the ISO system is the diversity that exists among NSBs and liaison organizations. Such diversity is seen not just in geographic location, number of staff or annual budgets of the NSBs or liaison organizations, but also in the array of approaches they employ that may be suitable to support their engagement in ISO standards development.

Differences in approach may occur for many reasons, and may be based on differing organization operational models, stakeholder dynamics or available resources. Embracing and sharing the range of effective approaches and good practices enriches the total ISO process, while forcing very specific expectations on all par ties may inhibit creativity, innovation and the engagement of important market players in ISO’s work.
Effective and cooperative consensus standards development must be built on a foundation of mutual respect and constructive collaboration among all parties engaged. Therefore, ISO, NSBs and liaison organizations benefit from diversity of thought and approach and from mutual respect.

Within the documents developed for this ISO/TMB PEG task, we hope to strike a balance between helpful principles and guidance to benefit the processes of NSBs and liaisons and recognizing and respecting the sovereignty of NSBs and liaison organizations to determine their processes.

This section provides principles and guidance to enable ISO NSBs to assess their level of interest in, and support for, new work proposed in ISO that does not relate to existing ISO commit tees and in the absence of an existing and relevant NSB national committee.

Principles

3.1P1
For new ISO projects, the proposer of the initiative should indicate the range of organizations/stakeholder groups supporting the initiative, as well as those that, according to their interests and identified needs should as a minimum be involved in its development in order to facilitate the arrangements of national consensus building.
3.1P2
The range of relevant national stakeholders to be engaged will depend on the ISO subject and will vary from one subject to another.
3.1P3
ISO NSBs should be committed to informing and seeking input from a broad range of relevant national stakeholders on any new ISO projects when they are proposed.

AFNOR, Openness related requirements

AFNOR, Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators

Requirements

6.5.1 Openess related requirements

The standardisation bureau shall do its utmost in order to identify the relevant interest categories, shall seek out and appeal to the diverse organisations representing the latter in view of guaranteeing a balanced composition of the standardisation commission, in particular with regard to the very small enterprises (VSEs), the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the artisans (craft industries). The standardisation bureau shall communicate sufficient information to them in order to allow them to take a decision with full knowledge of the facts. Depending on the subject matters, the standardisation bureau shall inform more specifically the representatives of the bodies which represent predominantly social interests such as, in particular, the consumer associations, the trade unions and the approved environmental protection associations, in order to allow them to take part. The list of these bodies is made available by AFNOR.

The standardisation bureau shall see to it that the stakeholders identify themselves per category of interest and shall formalise, for each standardisation commission, the list of the stakeholders, experts and their categories of interest.

NOTE The AFNOR Administrative Board advisory committees, such as the Consumer committee, can aid in identifying representatives of these interest categories […]

DIN, setting up a standards committee

Guidelines for standards committees in DIN German institute for standardization, Berlin

3.1 The Director of DIN can propose to the DIN Presidial Board the setting up of a standards
committee if
a) there is a new work item proposal for standards work for which no existing standards
committee declares itself responsible,
b) several standards committees are to be combined into one standards
committee, or
c) part of the area of work of a standards committee is to be assigned to a new standards committee due to its scope and/or significance.

3.2 If the Presidial Board approves the proposed setting up of a new standards committee, and of its name and its work area, then the Director of DIN invites the relevant stakeholders to a founding meeting and appoints an interim Manager. The founding meeting is led by a member of the DIN Management Board or the interim Manager of the standards committee.

3.3 During the founding meeting the following tasks should be completed:
a) establish whether all stakeholders have been invited,
b) determine whether there is an interest in setting up a new standards committee, and if so, pass a resolution to set up the standards committee,
c) draw up a preliminary work programme (see Clause 7.7 c)),
d) establish a financing plan,
e) elect a Steering Committee,
f) elect the Chairman and Vice Chairman/ Chairmen,
g) set up working committees and their respective interim Convenors, as appropriate.

3.1P4
All relevant national stakeholders should be given equal access to information and equal opportunity to provide input.

AFNOR, Impartiality & openess

AFNOR, extract from “Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators”

Principles

5.3 Impartiality

The work is conducted in an impartial manner where no stakeholder is favoured over another.

Impartiality, as far as normative work is concerned, is the ability to take into account the opinions and interests expressed by each of the stakeholders, to explain the latter, to examine each of the contributions without giving preference to or omitting any one, to see to it that the positions of the standardisation commission are loyally represented within the European and international bodies.

5.5.1 Openess

The normative work is open to all the interested parties which have the possibility of participating therein and of thus becoming stakeholders.

The stakeholders are invited to take part in defining the normative strategies of a sector or of a transversal thematic issue within the bodies of the standardisation bureau. This definition of the normative strategies of a sector is open to the interested parties.

Within the standardisation commissions, the stakeholders are involved at all the stages of the  normative work. They are invited to follow the work programmes, to participate in the drawing up of the standardisation documents and to take on responsibilities within the standardisation structures.

As normative work is by definition a collective work, no stakeholder may appropriate it and lay claim to the intellectual property thereof.

The openness and transparency principles defined in this document are not opposed to a financial contribution being requested from the stakeholders by the standardisation bureau in order to contribute towards its functioning. This contribution shall be appropriate and non discriminatory. However, certain stakeholders are dispensed from making a financial contribution. If it wishes, the standardisation bureau can dispense from making a financial contribution other stakeholders than those cited in the Decree N° 2009-697 of June 16, 2009 relative to standardisation.

NOTE [Decree N° 2009-697 of June 16, 2009 relative to standardisation] "However, no contribution to the costs of drawing up a standard can be requested from the approved consumer associations and environmental protection associations on account of their representativeness at national level, from the trade unions, from the small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) with less than 250 employees not dependent more than 25 % upon a group of over 250 employees, from the public education establishments and from the scientific and technological public establishments, as well as from the ministerial departments by virtue of the participation of their ministerial officials responsible for standards and of their representatives".

SCC, Openess and transparency

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

4.2 Openness and Transparency

The principles used in Canada governing openness and transparency are:
Open access by interested parties to the procedures guiding the standards development process; and,

Clarity with respect to the processes.

DIN, Ensuring participation

The German Standardization Strategy, an update

Goal 4: Standards bodies provide efficient procedures and tools

Ensuring the participation of »everyone«

Participation in standardization is to be simplified through appropriate rules, processes and instruments to ensure continued access for all without discrimination.

This requires a greater use of efficient information and communication technologies such as virtual meetings, online platforms and a national online portal for commenting on draft standards. Open and transparent processes within standards committees are further guarantees of a fair, balanced participation of all stakeholders in standardization.

In order to reach the broad public, presentations and publications should regularly report on current standardization activities. Standards and draft standards should be presented to the public in the form of abstracts. Access to standards should be made easier through customized deliverables and services, and e-learning platforms should be used to disseminate information on standardization.

3.1P5
Information on new ISO projects should be provided to the national stakeholders in a timely manner and at the earliest appropriate opportunity to allow all relevant national stakeholders to access the information, determine their interest in it and provide input effectively by any deadlines.

AFNOR, Principles: transparency

AFNOR, extract from “Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators”

Principles

5.4 Transparency

The transparency of the normative work concerns its programming and the sequence of operations. Transparency supposes that adequate, regularly updated information is rendered accessible in due time in order to enable the interested parties to take part in the normative work if they wish. It supposes that the information concerning the opening of new work, the launching and advancement of current standardisation work, the standardisation commissions where it is being conducted, the proposals for new standardisation documents, the scheduled publications is rendered accessible.

The stakeholders involved in standardisation work have access to the information relative to the procedures implemented within this framework by the standardisation bureau as well as to the contributions made by each of the stakeholders.

BSI, New work

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

5.2 New work
[…] Proposals specifically for projects to be undertaken at international or European level are also subject to approval by the UK mirror committee (see 5.6) and to the approval process of the relevant international or European standardization body.

The international and European processes entail consultation with national bodies to establish whether there is:
1) a market demand for the proposed standard; and
2) sufficient resource available to allow the project to be undertaken efficiently.

The outcome of the consultation is expressed as a national vote as to the desirability and feasibility of the proposal.

All new work approved is announced publicly with a view to attracting a wide range of involvement in its development.

Most projects are accepted onto the work programme on the basis of the scope statement originally submitted (see also 9.3.3). Subsequent significant changes to the scope can have an impact on the feasibility or desirability of a project and can result in the work being stopped.

3.1P6
ISO NSBs should make provision for a range of approaches to support timely and effective stakeholder engagement and participation based on the needs of the stakeholders.
3.1P7
ISO NSBs should seek input that represents organizational perspectives (e.g., companies, organizations, trade associations, government agencies, consumer interest groups, etc.) and/or the perspective of individual experts.

Note 1, ISO stakeholder categories

The ISO Technical Management Board has agreed that proposals for new work should detail the stakeholder categories most relevant to and affected by the proposal, as well as how those stakeholders may be affected.

It has also decided that each expert (from either an ISO member body or a liaison organization) on an ISO WG or similar body (i.e. any team of individual experts nominated to participate in the drafting of a new deliverable or the revision of an existing one) should indicate the stakeholder category that most closely reflects his or her background.

A scheme for the categorization is set out in the table below (full text available here) and will be reflected in individual entries in the ISO Global Directory. It is designed to assist:

  • those developing proposals for new ISO work as they attempt to identify the range of relevant stakeholders to be engaged;
  • ISO member bodies in conducting outreach to identify and engage the relevant national stakeholders in ISO work; and
  • individual experts in identifying their stakeholder category. 

Usually the categorization will reflect the role in which the individual expert also sits on a national mirror committee and in most cases will be determined by the nature of the individual’s employment. However, this is not always a reliable indicator, particularly for categories C, D and G.

Those who are employed as consultants should identify the category that most closely matches the origin of the expertise and the type of perspective that they bring to the project.

Representatives of standards developing organizations, bodies that accredit standards developing organizations, or national standards bodies are not regarded as being in a stakeholder category although they may participate in ISO technical bodies. Their participation is generally related to providing
administrative and procedural support or to act as an information conduit between their organization, its stakeholders and the ISO committees. It is not regarded as being in the same capacity as other stakeholders who provide technical expertise on the subject matter of draft ISO standards.

Please note that not all ISO committees, subjects or specific projects will engage the same sets of relevant stakeholder categories. Proposers of new work, ISO committees and ISO member bodies are free to choose the categories which they consider to be most appropriate.

Category/Title
A   Industry and commerce
B   Government
C   Consumers
D  Labour
E   Academic and research bodies
F   Standards application
G  Non-governmental organization (NGO)

AFNOR stakeholder classification (fr)

AFNOR, Règles pour la normalisation francaise, Partie 1, Instances et procédures de travail

1.5.2.1 Objectifs de la classification des participants aux travaux de normalisation
Ce paragraphe concerne les catégories d’intérêts dans les travaux de normalisation en application des exigences de la norme NF X50-088 relatives à l’ouverture et à la concertation. Destiné à l’usage des bureaux de normalisation, il indique les principes de classification des parties intéressées en catégories d’intérêts et en fixe les modalités d’application.
[…]
La mise en oeuvre de cette classification est une première étape nécessaire pour parvenir à une composition équilibrée des acteurs de la commission de normalisation. Cette classification doit permettre au bureau de normalisation d’organiser l’identification des parties intéressées et d’évaluer la représentativité de la commission de normalisation.

La présente classification peut aussi s’appliquer aux parties consultées lors du lancement de nouveaux projets, d’enquêtes publiques ou de créations de domaines de normalisation.
NOTE 2 La présente classification peut être initiée à partir de la terminologie habituelle, connue et partagée du ou des acteurs du secteur(s) au(x)quel(s) le bureau de normalisation contribue (voir paragraphe 1.5.2.3).

1.5.2.2 Principes de classification des parties intéressées et autres intervenants en normalisation
Les parties intéressées aux travaux de normalisation doivent être placées dans une catégorie en fonction de leur rôle relativement au domaine d’activité normalisé, choisie parmi celles précisées dans la Figure 1.

Figure 1

 

NOTE Pour faciliter la compréhension, les catégories d’intérêts et les autres intervenants en normalisation sont présentés en groupes homogènes.
Figure 1 — Catégories d’intérêts et autres intervenants en normalisation

NOTE Toute personne morale, par exemple entreprise, association, collectivité territoriale, établissement public, etc., a un objet (une activité) défini(e), fixé(e) dans ses statuts.
La classification des parties intéressées décrites dans ce paragraphe, si elle s’appuie bien naturellement sur l’objet de la personne morale, considère prioritairement son rôle par rapport au domaine d’activité d’une commission de normalisation donnée, pour l’affecter à une catégorie d’intérêt.

Ainsi, une entreprise, qui constitue une unité organisationnelle de production de biens ou de services, est souvent qualifiée de « fabricant » ou « prestataire ».

Elle ne sera toutefois affectée à la catégorie « fabricant ou prestataire » que dans les commissions de normalisation dont le domaine d’activité concerne les produits ou services qu’elle délivre. Lorsqu’elle intervient dans des commissions de normalisation traitant d’autres sujets, il convient de s’interroger sur la relation entre le domaine d’activité de l’entreprise et le domaine d’activité de la commission, pour affecter cette entreprise à la catégorie pertinente.

Exemple : une entreprise qui relève de l’activité « construction de véhicules automobiles » sera affectée à la catégorie « fabricant » dans la commission BNA 22 « véhicules routiers ». Dans la commission UNM 04 « Eléments de fixation », cette même entreprise intervient pour faire prendre en compte ses besoins dans la définition des vis qu’elle achète. Elle sera alors affectée à la catégorie « utilisateur ».

Les autres acteurs qui ne portent pas d’avis de partie intéressée mais qui apportent de l’information sur la relation entre la normalisation et la réglementation, sur d’autres normes ou travaux en cours ou sur des questions relevant du système français de normalisation, doivent être classés en « autres intervenants en normalisation ».

Le secrétaire de la commission de normalisation n'est pas concerné par cette classification.
Le bureau de normalisation peut conserver, pour son propre usage, la terminologie connue et partagée pour les rôles du secteur du domaine d’activité normalisé, dans la mesure où il indique la similitude avec les rôles du présent paragraphe ; par exemple, dans le secteur du bâtiment, on trouve des appellations telles que entreprise de travaux, maître d’ouvrage ou maître d’oeuvre, etc. qui en fonction du domaine d’activité normalisé se trouveront dans l’une ou l’autre des catégories d’intérêts du présent paragraphe.  Il convient que le classement soit validé avec l’acteur ; il doit être porté à la connaissance de la commission de normalisation.

SCC, balanced representation

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

Definitions
3.4 balanced representation
A representation of affected interest groups in a standards-development committee such that no single category of interest can dominate the committee proceedings. Typically, the interest groups are categorized as follows: producer, user, general interest, regulator, and consumer.

Producer: those who are predominantly involved in production (i.e., manufacture), promotion, retailing, or distribution of the subject product(s), material(s) or service(s).

User: those who predominantly represent end users of the subject product(s), material(s), or service(s) and who are not involved in any way in production and/or distribution of the subject product(s), material(s), or service(s).

General Interest: those with a demonstrated interest and relevant expertise and are not associated with the production, distribution, direct use, or regulation of the product(s), material(s), or service(s).

Regulator: any federal, provincial, municipal, other government body, or body/authority including those designated by a government responsible for regulating the acceptability, manufacture, sale or use of the subject products, materials or services and those enforcing these rules and regulations.

Consumer: individual member of the general public purchasing or using property, products or services for private purposes.

SABS, composition of TCs

South African National Standard, Standards for standards, Part 1: The development of South African national standards

6.2 Composition of technical committees

6.2.1 TCs shall be constituted to be representative of valid national interests in the standardization of products or processes.

6.2.2 Membership is preferably on the basis of organization, association or forum representation as opposed to on an individual company basis. Organizations normally invited to serve on TCs include organs of state, industry associations, consumer organizations or associations, non-governmental organizations, organized labour and professional, technical and trade organizations.

3.1P8
ISO NSBs should be committed to base decisions on whether to support the proposed new work and their level of involvement in the ISO activity (P or O) on consideration of the collected input received from relevant national stakeholders.

ANSI, US membership status

ANSI, ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

Extract from: 1.3.2 Determination of U.S. membership status in ISO technical committees and subcommittees

Registration of ANSI as a P-member of an ISO technical committee or subcommittee shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
The need for U.S. participation
Whether there is sufficient support indicated from those directly and materially affected to ensure effective U.S. participation
Whether there is an acceptable, competent organization willing to serve as administrator for the U.S. technical advisory group

ANSI registration as an O-member of an ISO technical committee or subcommittee shall be based on consideration of requests and the need for such a level of U.S. participation.  Requests shall be referred to the ExSC or its designee for decision.  In registering as an O-member, it is prudent for a U.S. TAG (Technical Advisory Group) to be established.

3.1P9
Comments submitted by NSBs should reflect the national consensus rather than a compilation of all comments expressed at the national level. Submittal of redundant or even contradictory comments should be avoided.

AFNOR, principles: consensus

AFNOR, extract from “Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators”

Principles

5.6 Consensus
A standardisation document or a position defined during the course of a normative process are said to be consensual if they obtain a general agreement, characterised by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Seeking a consensus is the objective of the concerted action between the stakeholders. The consensus does not necessarily involve unanimity.

 

Guidance

To assist in achieving these principles, the following guidance may be helpful :

3.1G1
ISO members should conduct a national consultation with all relevant stakeholders. This could take place via a step-wise approach such as:
  1. Identification of potential stakeholders – In addition to any internal processes, advertisements and general meetings, NSBs are encouraged to seek input on potentially relevant stakeholder from trade organizations, other organizations, governmental agencies, user/consumer groups that can complement the NSBs knowledge. This is especially the case in a new field for standardization
  2. Providing stakeholders with information on the project proposal
  3. Collecting feedback from stakeholders regarding whether there is a need for the proposed International Standard(s). This could be done via postal or e-mail input, or by conducting a workshop or an in-person meeting, teleconference or Web-based discussion of the proposed International Standard(s)
  4. Identifying those stakeholders willing to participate in the new ISO work on an ongoing basis.
3.1G2
Once relevant stakeholders have been engaged in the process and have contributed views and comments on the proposal, based on the input received, the responsible individual within the NSB should develop a recommended response for review and endorsement as the NSB position and comments on the ISO proposal.
3.1G3
There are many ways of engaging with the relevant stakeholders, both proactively and passively. For example, if your organization has a Website, details of the proposal should be placed on the site and a more targeted identification can be made via notices in relevant publications, on-line news items to stimulate discussion, and through already established sectors within NSBs. Furthermore, active outreach and communications to identified stakeholders should be pursued. Stakeholders in need of funding to support their participation should seek out sources of such funding.
3.1G4
NSBs new to active engagement in the ISO system may wish to seek advice and best practices from other NSBs who have had substantial experience to date.

This section provides principles and guidance to support the efforts by NSBs related to stakeholder engagement and consensus decision-making in the development of national positions on ISO work on an ongoing basis.

Principles

3.2P1
The approach by which an NSB determines its national position is the decision of the NSB.
3.2P2
NSBs should establish an appropriate process to develop national positions and comments on ISO work, as well as to determine the NSBs’ representation at ISO meetings. It is recommended that national mirror committees (NMCs) are formed whenever possible, but some NSBs may determine their national positions by other means.

SCC mirror committee voting

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

4.4 SCC Mirror Committee Voting
An SCC Mirror Committee establishes a Canadian voting position by consensus of its members.
In determining an affirmative voting position the following principles should be considered:

  • the proposal is technically sound and acceptable for use in Canada;
  • the proposal is technically sound, although it has no relevancy for present use in Canada;
  • the proposal is in accordance with Canadian practice, (as laid down in a Canadian standard or other standard, or embodied in basic design criteria used in Canada);
  • the proposal is not in conflict with Canadian cultural and/or jurisdictional imperatives

In determining a negative voting position, the following principles should be considered:

  • the proposal is not technically sound;
  • the proposal is not acceptable for use in Canada;
  • the proposal will conflict with published Canadian standards, related standards or basic design criteria used in Canada;
  • the proposal is in conflict with Canadian cultural and/or jurisdictional imperatives.

In determining an abstention voting position, the following principles should be considered:

  • there has been no SCC Mirror Committee participation in the development of the document;
  • the subject has no present or expected future relevance for Canada; or
  • the SCC Mirror Committee was not able to reach a consensus.
3.2P3
Some NSBs may already have national committees in a field where new international projects are started and the NSB should use this existing national committee in a capacity as an NMC if it is interested in serving in such a capacity and able to fulfil the requirements of such a role.

SNZ, Industry advisory groups

Standards New Zealand’s Protocol for ISO and IEC Technical Committee Participation

3.2.1
[…]
Where appropriate, an Industry Advisory Group (IAG)* will be consulted as to the individual that is most appropriate to be the convenor to represent New Zealand on the ISO technical or sub-committee.

Industry Advisory Group (IAG)
Industry Advisory Groups are groupings of independent, technical experts who provide advice to Standards New Zealand on standardisation priorities and the strategic direction for standardisation for the sector for which they have responsibility. IAG's can also act as international review groups (equivalent of national mirror committee) where appropriate.

3.2P4
Differences in approach may be based on differing operational models, national dynamics or available resources. Regardless of the specific approach used, what is vital is that the development of the national position is informed by, and responsive to, the input collected from the relevant national stakeholders.

SNZ Expectations of NZ representatives

Standards New Zealand’s Protocol for ISO and IEC Technical Committee Participation

3.2.2 Expectations of NZ representatives

[…] When a representative is endorsed as a convenor by Standards New Zealand to receive communications from an ISO committee and they are also endorsed as a balloter on documents the representative should consult with relevant parties affected by the subject matter (manufacturers, users, regulators, etc.). Comments and votes should embody a balanced point of view with input from these relevant parties. For "P" memberships an International review group will be established in order to determine the NZ position on matters.

SA, technical input on int. standards

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

Australian technical input on international standards

The basic principle in developing the Australian position is that, as with preparing an Australian Standard, it should embody a balanced point of view with input from all parties affected by the subject matter (manufacturers, users, regulators, etc.). Upon issue of a draft of an International Standard at the various stages of its development, the document is provided to the National Mirror Committee via Standards Australia, advising whether comment is sought or whether the document is subject to voting.

The National Mirror Committee shall review the technical content of documents out ‘for comment’ or Ballot and formulate the national input. Members of the National Mirror Committee shall consult with their Nominating Organisation in order to take the Organisation’s position into national meetings for discussion towards a consolidated national position/vote on international matters.

The Committee shall forward the consolidated Australian comments to Standards Australia, who will officially submit them to ISO or IEC. […]

3.2P5
A description of how the NSB determines its national positions should be publicly available to all national stakeholders or made available to them upon request.

Note 2

NSB’s commonly implement this principle by making their publications - such as the source documents listed on page 5 - available for free download from their websites.

3.2P6
It is the responsibility of the NSB to arrive at a national position that reflects and reconciles the views of the range of its national stakeholders that have a legitimate interest in the ISO subject.

BSI, public consultation

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

5.8 Consultation – draft for public comment (DPC)
A draft for public comment is the principal means by which BSI discharges its responsibility to consult on the content of British Standards. It is used for all such projects (including draft international and European standards and UK national annexes to them) and for all amendments of a technical nature that might affect the application of a standard or the attestation of conformity to it.

A DPC is expected to be a mature draft, reflecting at least the proposed technical content of the standard. In addition to inviting comments on text proposed for publication, DPCs can be used to pose specific questions to seek opinions from a wider community on particular points.

DPCs are usually issued for a minimum period of two calendar months. Exceptionally, longer or shorter periods may be selected to reflect particular needs or circumstances. BSI endeavours to make DPCs easily available and encourages informed responses from any organization or individual. It reserves the right to dismiss offensive or vexatious comments or those that reflect a campaign on the part of a vested interest.

AFNOR, concerted action

AFNOR, Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators

5.5.2 Concerted action

Concerted action between the stakeholders is permanent during the course of the normative work.

The stakeholders provide the contributions on which the work and decisions of the standardisation commissions are based.

Any interested party may make itself known with respect to the drafts prior to approval of the standards within the framework of the public enquiry conducted by AFNOR.

3.2P7
At times the development of a national position may require consideration of stakeholders’ interests in other related national mirror committees.
3.2P8
Decisions within NSBs should be taken based on the consensus principle and such decisions should carefully consider the balance of interests across the input collected from relevant national stakeholders.

SCC, consensus process

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

Principles
4.1 Consensus Process
The principles used in Canada governing the consensus process are:

  • Equal access and effective participation by concerned interests.
  • Respect for diverse interests and identification of those who should be provided access to provide the needed balance of interests.
  • Mechanism for dispute resolution.

BSI, decision-making, consensus

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

7.5 Decision-making
7.5.3 Consensus
The principle of consensus has its origins in the desire to achieve the general acceptance and application of a standard within its intended sphere of influence. This entails trying to ensure that the interests of all those likely to be affected by it are taken into account, and that individual concerns are carefully and fairly balanced against the wider public interest.
Achievement of consensus entails recognition of this wider interest and willingness to make reasonable compromises (see also 7.4 and 8.6). Trivial or vexatious objections are unlikely to gain support and may be over-ruled.

However, where a member consistently maintains a fundamental objection and supports it with sound arguments, these concerns will be taken seriously. If such objections are not voiced and sustained, normally within the context of a committee meeting where they can be put to the test, it will be assumed that consensus has been achieved.

SABS, committee decisions

South African National Standard, Standards for standards, Part 1: The development of South African national standards

6.9 Committee decisions
[…]


6.9.1.3 Decisions are taken by consensus. The process of consensus building (see clause 5) allows for repeated opportunities for members to comment or object to earlier decisions.


6.9.1.4 In the case of voting on an NWI, at least 50 % of P-members shall respond and the proposal shall be supported by a simple majority vote of the P-members. Once a NWI is accepted, it shall be registered in the programme of work of the relevant committee as a new project with the SAC. The following agreed target dates shall be indicated on the appropriate SABS form:

a) completion of the WD (preferably not more than six months after the approval of the NWIP);
b) completion of the subsequent CD stage (preferably not more than six months); and
c) completion of the DSS stage (preferably not more than six months).


6.9.1.5 In the case of voting on a CD, acceptance by the committee shall be done through consensus.
However, consensus is not always possible; therefore, the support of 67 % of P-members and not more than 25 % votes against the proposal may be deemed sufficient provided that

a) at least 50 % of all P-members cast a vote,
b) every attempt is made to resolve votes against the proposal, and
c) all comments received are dealt with.

3.2P9
All relevant national stakeholders should have equal access to participation in the NSB’s process for development of national positions, and all national stakeholders formally engaged in the NSB’s process should be assured of fair and equitable treatment and consideration in that process.
3.2P10
All relevant national stakeholders and NSB procedures must be committed to the development of a national position that reflects consensus across multiple stakeholders and stakeholder categories.
3.2P11
When consensus is reached among stakeholders within an NSB on technical content issues and on a national position on ISO work, it is expected that the NSB will submit the stakeholder consensus position and technical comments to ISO in accordance with its established procedures. It is recognized that on occasion an NSB may need to make editorial revisions for political or legal reasons.

ANSI, submittal of US position

ANSI, ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008) ANNEX 1

A7.9  Submittal of U.S. Position. 
Upon completion of the procedures for voting, consideration of views and objections, and appeals, the U.S. position, which represents the U.S. consensus, shall be submitted to ANSI by the U.S. TAG administrator.  ANSI, as the official ISO member body, is responsible for providing the U.S. position to ISO.

SA, technical input on int. standards

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

10.2 Australian technical input on international standards
[…] The National Mirror Committee shall review the technical content of documents out ‘for comment’ or Ballot and formulate the national input. Members of the National Mirror Committee shall consult with their Nominating Organisation in order to take the Organisation’s position into national meetings for discussion towards a consolidated national position/vote on international matters.

The Committee shall forward the consolidated Australian comments to Standards Australia, who will officially submit them to ISO or IEC.

3.2P12
Comments submitted by NSBs should reflect the national consensus rather than a compilation of all comments expressed at the national level. Submittal of redundant or even contradictory comments should be avoided.
3.2P13
When consensus is reached within an NSB on a national position on ISO work, all relevant national stakeholders should respect and support that national consensus position within ISO activities and at ISO meetings, and they should not express views within the ISO activity that may limit the success of the national consensus position.
3.2P14
Where consensus cannot be reached and a fundamental objection cannot be overcome, it is important that the NSB have a procedure for dispute resolution or appeals.

BSI, disputes

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

7.7 Disputes
Prolonged disagreements within a committee (or between committees) can be very damaging. Every effort should be made to resolve them quickly. Initially, it is the responsibility of the committee chairman to lead this task, with the support of the committee secretary and other BSI staff as appropriate.

If these efforts are not succeeding, and are unlikely to succeed within a reasonable timescale, BSI senior management should be alerted without further delay via the following e-mail address: BSOperationsDirector@bsigroup.com. A detailed investigation of the problem will be undertaken and remedial measures will be proposed.

If this fails to produce a durable solution, the problem will be referred to SPSC for resolution, the outcome of which is binding and final.

If consensus cannot be achieved regarding a UK vote in respect of an international or European standard, the time available often precludes an extended disputes resolution process. In such cases, a UK abstention will be formally recorded.

3.2P15
If all efforts to achieve consensus on a national position fail and where there is therefore no agreement on a national position, a position of abstention should be submitted to ISO.

BSI, disputes

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

7.7 Disputes
[…] If consensus cannot be achieved regarding a UK vote in respect of an international or European standard, the time available often precludes an extended disputes resolution process. In such cases, a UK abstention will be formally recorded

3.2P16
A P-member of an ISO committee should represent broad national interest.
3.2P17
If an ISO member is requesting P membership of a committee, an NMC or equivalent process should be in place to determine a national consensus position.
3.2P18
If there is very limited national interest (e.g. one or a very small number of stakeholders) in the standardization area, it is recommended that Observing O membership should be sought. An NSB may seek Participating P membership in the ISO activity provided that the limited level of interest represents the existing and relevant national stakeholders.
3.2P19
ISO committees and their leaders, NSBs and liaison organizations and their delegates and experts should respect the consensus positions submitted by NSBs and liaisons. SBs with concerns regarding the credibility of another NSB’s consensus position, based on the process to develop that position, should pursue their concerns via direct bilateral dialogue between the concerned NSBs.
3.2P20
NSBs should periodically assess their processes and procedures for stakeholder engagement and consensus-decision making on ISO work, and seek to continually improve them as necessary.

Guidance

To assist in achieving these principles, the following guidance may be helpful :

3.2G1
Consensus is defined in the ISO/ IEC Directives, Part 1 as: “General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity.”
3.2G2
In practice, consensus has its origins in the desire to achieve the general acceptance and application of a standard within its intended sphere of influence. This entails trying to ensure that the interests of all those likely to be affected by it are taken into account and that the individual concerns are carefully and fairly balanced against the wider public interest.
3.2G3
Achievement of consensus entails recognizing the wider interest and sometimes making certain compromises. Arguments for and against the existence of an ISO project should be pursued at the stage where the project proposal is considered and action is taken on it. However, once an ISO project has been approved, all NSBs and stakeholders involved in the process should be committed to advancing the global relevance of International Standard(s) within the agreed-upon scope, and they should not seek to hinder its further development. Where a member sustains a fundamental objection and supports it with sound arguments, these concerns will be taken seriously.
3.2G4
NSBs have an obligation to address, and make an effort to resolve, all views expressed.
3.2G5
When establishing national positions on International Standards ((committee drafts (CD), draft International standards (DIS), final draft International Standards (FDIS)) etc.) it is good practice for the NSB to identify for its own records the range of stakeholders that have been involved in the national decision making process. ISO processes and voting questions at all stages (proposal, CD, DIS, FDIS) should remind NSBs that they should be conducting broad stakeholder consultations in the development of positions and comments, and ask them to verify that they are doing so.
3.2G6
When a national position has been established, it is good practice for the NSB to communicate this national position to all relevant stakeholders that have been engaged in its development.
3.2G7
The procedure to appeal NSB decisions should, as a first step, promote informal and open dialogue between the concerned parties to attempt to resolve conflicts via informal rather than formal means whenever possible.
3.2G8
Any formal appeal process should be fair and transparent and include provisions to ensure that the decision-makers are perceived by the concerned parties as being neutral on the issue in question.
3.2G9
NSBs may organize national meetings, teleconferences or Web based discussions to assist in the development of national positions. All relevant stakeholders should have an opportunity to participate.
3.2G10
Again, as under Item 3.1G4 above, NSBs new to active engagement in the ISO system may wish to seek advice and best practices from other NSBs who have had substantial experience to date

 

This section provides principles and guidance on selecting and preparing (1) national delegation members to at tend meetings of ISO technical commit tees (TCs), project committees (PCs) and subcommittees (SCs), and (2) national experts to at tend ISO working group meetings.

Principles

3.3P1
National delegations and national experts are appointed by the NSB.

SNZ, expectations of NZ representatives

Standards New Zealand’s Protocol for ISO and IEC Technical Committee Participation

3.2.2 Expectations of NZ Representatives
[…] Prior to attending international meetings and after completion of meeting registration the endorsed member must obtain accreditation from Standards New Zealand to represent New Zealand (in order to be the NZ delegate). If more than one member is attending a particular meeting Standards New Zealand will select a head of delegation. For "P" memberships the relevant IAG or New Zealand International review group for the ISO project / committee will confirm endorsement of New Zealand representatives at the meeting.

SA, Aus delegates to ISO/IEC meetings

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

11 Australian delegates to ISO or IEC meetings

11.1 Nomination of delegates and their role
Delegates are endorsed because they are considered to be one of the experts best able to represent Australian interests in the deliberations of an ISO or IEC Committee, primarily because of their expertise in the field of activity of the Committee. They have indicated a willingness to serve, they have demonstrated an ability to represent the Australian position on issues of concern, their employer has indicated a willingness to commit their time, and their employer or nominating organisation is willing to offer financial support for their attendance at the meetings. Also, they will normally have had experience on Australian Committees.

3.3P2
The identification of NSB delegations and experts should occur within an NMC, or by equivalent means, within the NSB.

SCC, selection of delegates

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

Selection and Accreditation of Delegates

The SCC Mirror Committee Chair shall be responsible for selecting those members chosen to attend international meetings as part of the Canadian delegation taking into consideration the expertise needed by Canada to express the Canadian position. SCC shall be notified of the Canadian delegation 6 weeks in advance of the meeting, where possible. SCC shall accredit and notify the appropriate International Leaders of the Canadian delegation.

AFNOR, mode de désignation (fr)

AFNOR, Règles pour la normalisation française, Partie 1: Instances et procédures de travail.

1.5.7.3.1 Mode de désignation
La participation française pour chaque réunion de TC/SC se concrétise normalement par l'envoi d'une délégation française composée d'un ou plusieurs délégués français en tenant compte des sujets à l'ordre du jour de la réunion.
Le délégué à une réunion de comité technique ou sous-comité, européen ou international, doit faire partie de la commission de normalisation en charge du domaine de normalisation correspondant. A titre exceptionnel et pour une réunion ponctuelle, la commission de normalisation peut solliciter, avec l’accord du bureau de normalisation, la participation d’une personne qui n’est pas expert de la commission de normalisation.
Dans le cas où le TC/SC est suivi par une seule commission de normalisation, le délégué est désigné par cette commission. Dans le cas où le TC/SC est suivi par plusieurs commissions de normalisation, des modalités de coopération sont établies entre ces commissions de normalisation ; ces modalités précisent également l’instance jouant le rôle attribué dans le présent article à la commission de normalisation (voir 1.5.8 « Liaisons entre commissions de normalisation et modalités de coopération »).
La composition de la délégation ainsi que son mandat sont référencés dans le compte-rendu de la réunion de la commission de normalisation en précisant qui est le chef de la délégation.
Dans le cas où il n’y a pas de réunion préparatoire à la réunion du TC/SC, le secrétaire de la commission de normalisation, en concertation avec le président de celle-ci, propose par correspondance à la commission de normalisation une délégation et en précise le mandat.
Le bureau de normalisation informe officiellement le secrétariat du TC/SC de la composition de la délégation française en identifiant le chef de délégation. Il tient cette information à disposition d’AFNOR et la lui fournit sur demande. Le bureau de normalisation confirme au délégué sa nomination, son mandat et son rôle décrit dans le vade-mecum qu’il a reçu.

SABS, selection of delegates

South African National Standard, Standards for standards, Part 1: The development of South African national standards

6.10 Relations with, and participation in, international and regional committees
[…]

6.10.4 The mirror committee shall appoint delegates to formal meetings of international standards committees.

6.10.5 Delegates shall be given a comprehensive mandate from the national committee, and shall represent it fully when attending the meeting in question. If it is necessary to depart from a position established by the mirror committee, delegates should be given the opportunity to defend their actions (for example by reference to broader strategic considerations).

6.10.6 The selection of delegates shall be determined by the nature of the business likely to be discussed at the meeting.

6.10.7 Delegates should have a thorough understanding of the topics under discussion, so that they can respond authoritatively to positions held by other national delegations.

6.10.8 Delegates and subject matter experts attending any international standardization meeting are fully accountable to the respective national committee.

3.3P3
All relevant and interested stakeholders who are members of the NMC should be afforded fair and equitable consideration to serve as an NSB delegate or expert.

SNZ, protocol for TC participation

Standards New Zealand’s Protocol for ISO and IEC Technical Committee Participation

3.2.1
[…]
In appointing a convenor to represent New Zealand the following should be considered:
The person is recognized as an expert in the field of the technical work of the international committee.
The person is able to represent the New Zealand position.
The work of the TC or SC is of benefit to New Zealand.
The New Zealand Industry Advisory Group or international review group has been consulted.
It is important for New Zealand participants to update Standards New Zealand regarding any changes in their contact details (their employer, phone, or email details)

SA, nomination and funding

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

Annex B Nomination and funding to attend international meetings

B.2 Consideration when nominating a delegate

When considering likely delegates, Standards Australia and the National Mirror Committee must take into account the prospective delegate’s:

  • knowledge and level of expertise;
  • previous standardisation activities;
  • negotiation skills;
  • technical expertise to represent the Australian view at the meeting;
  • understanding of the Australian view on the matters to be discussed at the meeting; and
  • employer has indicated a willingness to commit their time and financial support for attendance at international meetings.
3.3P4
The NSB delegation should be able to represent all aspects of the agreed national position. This might entail having more than one delegate attend the ISO meeting.
3.3P5
All members of an NSB delegation to an ISO TC/PC/SC meeting should be expected to speak with one voice to advocate for the NSB’s national position.

SCC, authority for delegation

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

10.5 Authority for Delegation
Canadian delegates to ISO, IEC or JTC meetings represent the National Member Body for Canada. All delegates shall support the Canadian position and all comments on behalf of the National Member Body. A Canadian delegate shall not represent his or her employer or themselves during the technical sessions and shall refrain from expressing personal opinions contrary to the official Canadian position.

SNZ, protocol for TC participation

Standards New Zealand’s Protocol for ISO and IEC Technical Committee Participation

3.2.1 Types of participation

2. Working groups (ISO/IEC), project teams (IEC) an maintenance teams (IEC)
[…] every attempt should be made to ensure that a NZ member of an IAG / international working group (or project/maintenance team) does not pursue a technical position that is at odds with an official NZ position. That is any position already adopted by a NZ committee should be promoted and issues that have been raised and rejected by a NZ committee (international review group or IAG) should not be raised or supported in the ISO/IEC forum.

3.2.2 Expectations of NZ representatives
[…] After receiving accreditation and prior to attending the meeting the NZ delegate should check with Standards New Zealand as to whether there are any issues that require direction from SNZ.

BSI, UK delegates and experts

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

7.5.4 UK delegates and experts in European and international bodies

The relevant BSI mirror committee usually selects delegations to formal meetings of international or European standards committees. Delegations are expected to receive a comprehensive brief from the mirror committee, and to reflect it faithfully when attending the meeting in question. If it is necessary to depart from a position established by the mirror committee, delegations should feel confident of being able to defend their actions (e.g. by reference to broader strategic considerations).

The selection of delegates should be informed by the nature of the business likely to be discussed at the meeting. It is desirable that the UK delegation has as thorough an understanding as possible of the topics under discussion, so that it can respond authoritatively to positions held by other national delegations.

National delegations seldom comprise more than three individuals, and resource constraints often dictate that only one is able to attend.

Those who are nominated by UK mirror committees to attend international or European working groups or similar bodies (see 5.5.2) are selected principally for their subject expertise. They are neither expected nor permitted to represent any interest group. They may be drawn from outside the committee membership, in which case they become co-opted members of the UK committee for the duration of the project. Before beginning their work, they are expected to have taken a brief from the UK mirror committee, preferably by attending a meeting so that they can understand the nature of the UK interest in it, and any particular position that the UK wishes to be reflected in the drafting work.

Delegates and experts attending any international or European standardization meeting are fully accountable to the respective UK mirror committee. They are expected to provide a succinct but comprehensive report of the outcomes of the meeting, with particular emphasis on matters of interest or concern to the UK committee. Where more than one delegate or expert attends the same meeting for the same purpose, a single report will usually suffice.

SA, Aus delegates to ISO/IEC meetings

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

11 Australian delegates to ISO or IEC meetings

11.2 Who do delegates represent?
On an ISO or IEC Committee, delegates represent Australia through Standards Australia. They do not represent:

  • a professional or technical society or industry association, (even if such an organisation has initiated and co-funds their participation in Australian standardisation),
  • their company or department, or a personal viewpoint,
  • the Australian Government (even if they are an employee),
  • ISO or IEC, or
  • Standards Australia

ISO, IEC and Standards Australia are non-government organisations and none is legally authorised to commit the Australian Government to anything or to act on its behalf.

As the Australian member of the international Committee, regardless of the size of the delegation, Standards Australia has only one vote. This means that the Australian delegation must always speak as one in negotiations with the other members. The positions of the delegation members must be unified and must be agreed upon before the meeting takes place.

If there is more than one delegate, the National Mirror Committee will appoint a delegation leader, known as Head of Delegation. The leader will be the delegation’s principal spokesperson. It is also often desirable to present a common view from Australia and New Zealand, but this is normally achieved separately by the two Standards Development Organisations, each of which has a separate voice and vote in ISO or IEC work. […]

11.3 Familiarisation
The delegate's first task is to familiarise themselves with the past work and present activities of the ISO or IEC Committee.

Due to the time and expense involved in conducting international meetings, most ISO/IEC work is carried out by correspondence. The relevant National Mirror Committee takes part in this work, and shortly before an ISO or IEC meeting it will meet to establish the Australian position on agenda items. The international delegate will generally be asked and expected to attend this briefing either in person or via video/teleconferencing.

It is probable that the ISO or IEC meeting has been called because one or more proposals are approaching the voting stage. The Australian delegation must ensure that it clearly understands the Australian viewpoint as determined by the National Mirror Committee.

Delegates should become thoroughly familiar with the content of any Australian proposal to be considered at the meeting. They should also be familiar with the Australian position on other countries’ submissions. At the meeting, delegates may be called upon to defend Australian proposals and are expected to do so in conversations with delegates from other countries.

3.3P6
National experts to an ISO WG should be selected on the basis of their relevant technical expertise.

SCC, Working Groups, Canadian experts

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

9. Working Groups
9.3 Canadian Experts
The number of Canadian participants appointed to a Working Group should be reasonably limited in size. The term of appointment of an expert is determined by the completion of the tasks assigned to the Working Group. The Canadian expert shall act in a professional capacity and not as an official delegate or representative of SCC or the SCC Mirror Committee; however, the expert does require accreditation by the SCC to act as an expert. The expert shall have the ability to determine if a specific requirement or compromise is acceptable to relevant Canadian stakeholders.

9.4 Working Group Expert Eligibility
Only members of the SCC Mirror Committee shall be eligible for accreditation as a Working Group expert.

Note: This requirement ensures that experts are familiar with the work of the committee, relevant standards procedures, and receive the documents of the Technical Committee or Subcommittee as appropriate.

AFNOR, expert de commission (fr)

AFNOR, Règles pour la normalisation française, Partie 1: Instances et procédures de travail .

ANNEX 1
A.1.5.4.2 Fiche "Expert de commission de normalisation"

A.1.5.4.2.2 Compétences/connaissances
a) Vous maîtrisez votre domaine de compétence technique et vous avez une bonne connaissance des enjeux stratégiques et économiques de vos mandants.

b) Vous connaissez les exigences et les règles du travail normatif y compris celles relatives au contenu des documents de normalisation.

Guidance

To assist in achieving these principles, the following guidance may be helpful:

3.3G1
National delegations should be selected from the members of the NMC and be actively engaged in the work of the NMC.
3.3G2
The selection criteria may be based on a number of factors, for example technical expertise, effective communication skills in language of meeting, and active participation in the work of the NMC.
3.3G3
National experts should be selected and nominated through the NMC. Though selected for their individual technical knowledge and expertise, such experts should be aware of national positions in order to minimise conflict as the project progresses. WG experts should regularly report to their NSB or NMC on the progress of work within the WG.
3.3G4
It is preferable that appointed individuals from national delegations and national experts be in a position to commit the necessary time and resources.
3.3G5
Continuity of participation in national delegations and as WG experts throughout the life-cycle of an ISO project should be preferred and encouraged.
3.3G6
3.3G6. All national delegation members or WG experts with a financial need should have fair and equitable access to, and consideration for, such funding from any source. It should not be assumed that the NSBs themselves will be able in all cases to provide such funding. Any source for such funding, should have procedures established for the administration of the funding program, the application process to acquire the funding and the criteria for approving requests for the funding. These procedures should be open, transparent and available to any relevant party for the fund.

SCC, financial support

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

10.6 Financial Support
Canadian delegates shall obtain financial support in order to attend international meetings and actively participate in the development of the work.

SA, funding & funding applications

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

11.4 Travel arrangements and funding
Delegates make their own arrangements for travel and accommodation (though convenient accommodation for meetings is usually proposed by the meeting organisers). Delegates are responsible for seeking their own independent advice on issues such as the desirability of travel to the countries involved, any necessary visas, travel and medical insurance.

Each year Standards Australia receives funds (Commonwealth’s Support for Industry Service Organisations (SISO) Program) to assist selected delegates to participate on Australia's behalf in international standardisation activities. These funds are provided as part of the Government’s commitment to the development and adoption of International Standards, as well as the government’s obligations under the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

Commonwealth’s SISO Program is intended to supplement funds from other sources since it is expected that other Australian organisations will also provide practical support for international standardisation activities by contributing to the cost of participation. This is consistent with the government position that support for industry should be co-funded. Funding for participation at international meetings is reserved for delegates where Australia is a participating (P) member of the ISO or IEC Committee.

More information on the application process for travel subsidy see Annex B (below).

Annex B Nomination and funding to attend international meetings

B.2.1 Basis of funding support
Funding is provided to assist representatives to attend international standardisation meetings and represent Australia’s views where such attendance is in the national interest or will assist Australian industry in world markets.

The following general guidelines apply to the provision of funding under this scheme:

  1. When an international meeting is held in Australia or New Zealand funding is not applicable.
  2. Funding is limited to one delegate per meeting; therefore, funding support for an Australian delegation to attend an international Committee meeting would normally be limited to one person, even if there is a multi-person delegation.
  3. Where the National Mirror Committee considers it necessary for more than one person to attend, the funding per delegate may be shared between the delegates.
  4. Funding applies to delegates who are supported by Standards Australia and an National Mirror Committee.
  5. Where an international meeting involves TC, SC and WG meetings at the same location, with SC and WG meeting concurrently, and the main Committee on adjacent days, funding would normally be limited to supporting the number of concurrent meetings of major interest to Australia, and a total cap of funding is applied to ensure that the funding is spread across a broad range of industries.
  6. Where it is considered necessary for more than two persons to attend a series of concurrent meetings at the same location, then funding may be shared between delegates.
  7. Where the Chair of an international Committee (TC, SC,WG) is from Australia, it is desirable that the funding for this attendee shall come either from the relevant industry association or from the company of employment.
  8. The Commonwealth’s SISO Program subsidy is reserved for attendance at international meetings where Australia is an active P-Member.

B.2.2 Submitting the nomination and funding application
The Nomination and funding application to attend international meetings form must be completed for each delegate attending an international meeting. This includes attendance at Technical Committee meetings, governance meetings and working group meetings.
The delegate is responsible for preparing the Nomination and funding application to attend international meetings form and must submit the completed form including evidence of endorsement from the National Mirror Committee’s to Standards Australia. Meeting minutes or emails from the committee in support of the delegate are acceptable as evidence of endorsement.
The form should be submitted at least six weeks prior to the meeting to ensure a smooth and timely passage of the application. If the above documentation is prepared less than six weeks before the meeting, the reason the request is urgent should be clearly stated. A sample form is available in Annex C.
The completed form and supporting documentation should be sent to the Project Manager of the National Mirror Committee.

3.3G7
National delegations should select a head of the delegation. If another delegate can speak to an issue more effectively than the head of delegation, the head of delegation should seek to be recognized to speak and then request the other delegate to speak for him or her.

SCC, role of 'Head of delegation'

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

10.3 Head of Delegation
If the Canadian delegation consists of more than one individual, the SCC Mirror Committee Chair shall appoint a Head of Delegation. The Head of Delegation will act as spokesperson for the SCC Mirror Committee but may call on other delegates to speak to specific agenda items. The Head of Delegation is also responsible for the development of the Head of Delegation Meeting Report that is to be submitted to SCC on the SCC electronic workspace following an international meeting. (See Annex C Head of Delegation (HoD) Report)..

3.3G8
Members of national delegations and WG experts should have sufficient language skills to effectively communicate in the environment of the particular ISO committee or WG.
3.3G9
Preparation of national delegations and national experts before meetings should include :
  1. A briefing by the NMC on national positions (this may occur via a physical meeting, a teleconference or a Web-based discussion)
  2. Formal or informal training on ISO rules and procedures (e.g. ISO/IEC Directives)
  3. Access to documentation, meeting minutes and any papers that are relevant to the technical subject and meeting.

AFNOR, assistance to experts (fr)

AFNOR, Règles pour la normalisation française, Partie 1: Instances et procédures de travail .

1.5.7.3.3 Assistance apportée par le système français de normalisation
En complément de l’assistance apportée à l’expert de commission de normalisation(voir 1.5.4.2.3)le bureau de normalisation apporte l’assistance suivante:

  • mise à disposition de la documentation et des informations actualisées nécessaires pour participer à la réunion du comité technique ou du sous-comité
  • organisation des débats préparatoires au sein de la commission
  • mise à disposition du document formalisant la position française, par exemple sous la forme d’un compte rendu de réunion
  • participation à la délégation française, en fonction des besoins et des ressources disponibles
  • action de lobbying grâce au réseau des comités membres
3.3G10
National delegations and national experts should maintain close communication, which should include a debriefing by the national delegation members or national experts to the NSB or NMC following the international meeting.
3.3G11
NSBs and NMCs should very carefully consider whether they should allow one or a very small number of delegates from a single organization to represent the NSB at an ISO meeting when the organization(s) may be the only interested stakeholder within the NSB.
3.3G12
If new business is raised for action at the meeting that was not appropriately communicated to the committee in advance of the meeting, the national delegation should seek that such action be deferred until effective national consultations of all NSBs that are P members can take place.
3.3G13
NSBs and/or their NMCs should provide their delegates and experts with guidance concerning how much negotiating flexibility they have regarding the national consensus position and comments at an ISO TC, SC or WG meeting. In addition, the NSB and/or its NMC should advise the delegates and experts as to their positions and negotiating flexibility in relation to positions and comments of other NSBs.

 

This section provides principles and guidance to NSBs on NMCs to ISO work, for NSBs that choose to use an NMC approach.

Principles

3.4P1
Internal procedures for the establishment and operations of NMCs should exist and should be publicly available.

SNZ, protocol for TC participation

Standards New Zealand’s Protocol for ISO and IEC Technical Committee Participation

In areas where there is significant interest from various NZ stakeholders as to the work on a particular international committee (and no NZ Industry Advisory Group exists) a balanced international review group* will be established. This review group will be consulted on documents circulated by the ISO committee in order to establish a NZ position and also to assist Standards New Zealand select a delegate to represent NZ interests at meetings. In this instance the convenor appointed by Standards New Zealand must consult the members of the international review group before voting on documents.
[…]
Standards New Zealand may appoint a convenor** of an International Review Group (IRG) to a TC or SC which it has elected to be a "P" or "O" member, to receive documents from the ISO TC or SC Secretariat. This convenor may also be appointed as a balloter on documents that require voting in the TC or SCs activities.

* international review group (IRG)
An international review group is a group of individuals who are consulted on documents circulated by the ISO committee in order to establish a NZ position and also to assist Standards New Zealand select a delegate to represent NZ interests at meetings.

** convenor
An endorsed representative by Standards New Zealand (perhaps through an IAG or international review group) for ISO and an endorsed representative for IEC by the NZNC (IEC) for IEC, that has access to particular technical committee, subcommittee, working group of project team documents at ISO or IEC. The convenor assists members of the IRG to form the New Zealand view.

ANSI, formation of the US TAG

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

2.1  Formation of a U.S. TAG
2.1.1  General.  U.S. TAGs are committees accredited by ANSI for participation in ISO technical activities, which operate in compliance with the ANSI Criteria for the Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and IEC.   Such U.S. TAGs are administered by U.S. TAG administrators, who are appointed by ANSI to be responsible for ensuring compliance with TAG procedures.  The accreditation of a U.S. TAG and the approval of a related TAG administrator are related issues that are addressed jointly by the ExSC.  All TAGs shall be in compliance with the requirement for openness and balance as outlined in sections B4.1 and B4.2 of the Criteria for the Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and IEC.  In addition, each accredited U.S. TAG shall be referred to as an “ANSI-Accredited U.S. TAG” (or alternatively, the “ANSI/[SDO] TAG to ISO/TC XX” or the equivalent) and U.S. TAG Administrators shall so refer to the TAG in their communications with TAG members and all other parties regarding TAG activities. 

The model operating procedures given in Annex A may be adopted fully by a U.S. TAG as its operating procedures, thus meeting the requirements of the Criteria for the Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and IEC.  As an alternative, the U.S. TAG may devise its own operating procedures so long as they meet the requirements in the Criteria for the Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and IEC.  Existing U.S. TAGs have evolved very effective and successful operating procedures that may differ from the model U.S. TAG procedures of Annex A, but still comply with ANSI’s criteria for openness and due process.  It is intended that existing U.S. TAGs (and any new U.S. TAG that finds it necessary or desirable to modify the model) shall adopt operating procedures, subject to review and approval by the U.S. TAG administrator and ANSI (see 2.5).

Subgroups of U.S. TAGs or separate U.S. TAGs may be formed to relate to subcommittees of an ISO technical committee.  Where the U.S. TAG to an ISO subcommittee is not independently accredited in accordance with 2.5.4, the degree of independent authority to take actions shall be defined in writing (as part of the TAG procedures, or as a policy or agreement) and shall be approved by the parent U.S. TAG and TAG Administrator, and a copy provided to ANSI.

2.2.3  Functions. 
Within the scope of the ISO technical committee or subcommittee, and within the procedures established by ISO, a U.S. TAG shall perform the following functions:

Recommend registration of ANSI as a P- or O-member on an ISO technical committee or subcommittee, recommend a change in ANSI membership status on an ISO technical committee or subcommittee or recommend termination of membership as a P- or O-member on an ISO technical committee or subcommittee

Initiate and approve U.S. proposals for new work items for submission by ANSI for consideration by an ISO technical committee or subcommittee

Initiate and approve U.S. working drafts for submission by ANSI to ISO technical committees or subcommittees (and, where appropriate, working groups) for consideration as committee drafts .

Determine the U.S. position on an ISO draft international standard, draft technical report, committee drafts, ISO questionnaires, draft reports of meetings, etc.

Provide adequate U.S. representation to ISO technical committee or subcommittee meetings, designate heads of delegations and members of delegations, and ensure compliance with the ANSI Guide for U.S. Delegates to IEC/ISO Meetings (including preparation and submission of a Head of Delegation report by the designated Head of Delegation)

Determine U.S. positions on agenda items of ISO technical committee or subcommittee meetings and advise the U.S. delegation of any flexibility it may have on these positions
Nominate U.S. technical experts to serve on ISO working groups

Provide assistance to U.S. secretariats of ISO technical committees or subcommittees, upon request, including resolving comments on draft international standards, draft technical reports and committee drafts
Identify and establish close liaison with other U.S. TAGs in related fields, or identify ISO or IEC activities that may overlap the U.S. TAG’s scope

Recommend to ANSI the acceptance of secretariats for ISO technical committees or subcommittees

Recommend that ANSI invite ISO technical committees or subcommittees to meet in the United States (see 1.4)

Recommend to ANSI U.S. candidates for the chair of ISO technical committees or subcommittees and U.S. conveners of ISO working groups

SA, Establishment of a NMC

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

5. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL MIRROR COMMITTEE

5.1 Basis for establishment of a National Mirror Committee
A National Mirror Committee is established to monitor or participate in the work of one or more given ISO or IEC Committees. A proposal for establishing a National Mirror Committee may result from:
The formation of a new ISO and/or IEC Technical Committee (TC), Project Committee (PC) or Subcommittee (SC) in a new field; or
An Australian community of interest expressing the need to participate on an existing international TC, PC or SC.

5.2 Proposal for international participation
A proposal by a stakeholder or an existing Australian Committee to establish a National Mirror Committee for participation in a related ISO or IEC activity shall clearly state the net benefit for Australia and the need for participation internationally. The proponent shall submit a Proposal Form - International Participation to Standards Australia, who will consider and evaluate the proposal.
Standards Australia will evaluate the proposal based on the level of participation, the scope of the international project/program of work, demonstration of strategic importance to Australia and the level of stakeholder support.
Details on the roles and responsibilities of the National Mirror Committees are outlined in this document and summaries in Annex A.

Annex A Roles and responsibilities of national mirror committees

A.1 SCOPE AND APPLICATION
This annex summarises the roles and responsibilities of the National Mirror Committees, Subcommittees (SC) or Working Groups (WG) selected to participate in international standardisation through ISO and IEC. It also outlines Standards Australia’s responsibilities in relation to assisting Mirror Committees with their program of work.
LINK TO ANNEX A

SABS, participation in int. committees

South African National Standard, Standards for standards, Part 1: The development of South African national standards

6.10 Relations with, and participation in, international and regional committees

6.10.1 Wherever practicable, the committee structure should be aligned with that of the corresponding international or regional standards organization. The degree of liaison with international committees shall be determined by the national committee and approved by the SAC. In practice, many committees provide input into the development of international standards and subsequently decide to adopt these international standards as South African National Standards..
South African National Standard, Standards for standards, Part 2: Requirements for the recognition of Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) in South Africa

6 Participation in the international standards development process

6.1 To link the activities of the SDO with international standardization activities in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and similar bodies, the SDO should formally develop relationships with the relevant international TCs and subcommittees (SCs) by registering an appropriate grade of membership (P-membership or O-membership in the case of ISO and IEC (see SANS 1-1)) through the SABS.

6.2 For each international TC and SC, the SDO shall appoint a mirror committee (MC) headed by a Chairperson (known as the MC Chairperson) who shall be responsible for dealing with international standardization matters in a manner mandated formally by the SDO's relevant TC.

6.3 All comments and votes submitted to international TCs and SCs shall be sanctioned by the MC Chairperson and sent to the SABS in due time for forwarding to the international bodies concerned.

6.4 Only delegates formally authorized and mandated by MCs may attend international TC and SC meetings, and related technical meetings such as Working Groups, Task Forces, Maintenance Teams and others. The SABS shall handle all notifications to the international secretariats regarding authorized attendees, based on advice from MC Chairpersons.

6.5 All activities of MCs, including submission of comments and votes, as well as the attendance of international committee meetings, shall be formally and timeously reported by the MC Chairperson to the relevant TC of the SDO.

NOTE The relevant TC of the SDO might wish not to delegate such activities to another group, and deal directly with them instead. In that case, the TC is deemed to be the MC with regard to international work, and its Chairperson is likewise deemed to be the MC Chairperson unless otherwise determined.

SCC, establishment of mirror committees

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

5. Establishment and Administration of SCC Mirror Committees

5.1 General
Canadian participation and input into the technical work of ISO and/or IEC shall be conducted through SCC Mirror Committees, which are approved by, function under the authority of, and report to SCC. These Committees are administered by SCC or by an SCC-accredited SDO and comply with the requirements contained in this document.

5.2 Establishment of an SCC Mirror Committee
Proposals for establishing an SCC Mirror Committee may result from:
A change in technical, commercial, or other considerations requiring a review of the need for Canadian participation in ISO and/or IEC technical work;
An addition to a committee’s program of work which is of interest to Canadian stakeholders;
The creation of a new ISO and/or IEC Technical Committee in a new field or the establishment of a new Subcommittee, Working Group or Ad-hoc Group under an existing Technical Committee; or
A change in SCC priorities within the Technical Committee Program.

5.3 Canadian Participation
A proposal by a stakeholder to establish an SCC Mirror Committee for Canadian participation in a related ISO and/or IEC activity shall state clearly the nature of Canadian interest, how the standards to be developed will advance the national economy, support sustainable development, benefit the health, safety and welfare of workers and the public, assist and protect consumers, facilitate domestic and international trade and indicate whether there are adequate human and financial resources to actively participate in the work. SCC will consider the proposal and register Canada as a P member of an ISO and/or IEC Technical Committee based on a clear demonstration of the need for Canadian participation based on the elements above and sufficient support indicated by those affected to ensure active participation. (See Annex A, Criteria for the Establishment of an SCC Mirror Committee).
A stakeholder proposal, including a request made by an SCC accredited SDO, to establish an SCC Mirror Committee shall be submitted to SCC for evaluation, consideration in relation to the overall priorities of the Technical Committee Program and approval by SCC.

5.4 Administration of SCC Mirror Committees

5.4.1 Administered by SCC
Where there is no corresponding national work and where an SCC Mirror Committee is not harmonized with that of an SDO Technical Committee in accordance with CAN-P-1005, administration of the SCC Mirror Committee shall be in conformance with the requirements and responsibilities as defined in CAN-P-7.

5.4.2 Administered by a SCC Accredited SDO
Where there is corresponding work at the national level being performed by a SDO committee it is the objective of SCC that the national and international standards committee work be integrated to the greatest extent possible whenever Canadian practices and conditions permit. This harmonization of national and international standards committee work is administered by an SCC-accredited SDO, under the authority of SCC and shall be in conformance with the requirements and responsibilities of the applicable SDO and the policies outlined in CAN-P-1005 for Operational requirements for granting and maintaining SCC/SDO harmonization.

Annex A - Criteria for the Establishment of an SCC Mirror Committee
(NORMATIVE)
Canadian Participation
A proposal by a stakeholder to establish an SCC Mirror Committee for Canadian participation in a related ISO, IEC or JTC activity shall state clearly the nature of Canadian interest, how the standards to be developed will advance the national economy, support sustainable development, benefit the health, safety and welfare of workers and the public, assist and protect consumers, facilitate domestic and international trade and indicate whether there are adequate human and financial resources to actively participate in the work.
SCC will consider the proposal and register Canada as a P member of an ISO, IEC or JTC Technical Committee based on a clear demonstration of the need for Canadian participation based on the elements below and sufficient support indicated by those affected to ensure active participation.
A stakeholder proposal, including a request made by an SCC accredited SDO to establish an SCC Mirror Committee should be submitted to the Program Manager, International Standards Development for evaluation, consideration and approval by SCC. (Clause 5.3 CAN-P-7).

NOTE: SCC recommends the use of the template provided below which is intended to assist in the consistent collection and provision of the required information to meet the requirement.

3.4P2
For those NSBs who form NMCs, an NMC should be established as early as possible in the process to ensure that the NSB is in a position to respond to the ISO process.

ANSI, Registration as P-member

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

2.1.3 Registration as P-Member.

Before ANSI registers as a P-member of an ISO technical committee or subcommittee an appropriate body shall be designated to serve as the U.S. TAG and an organization shall be identified to serve as the TAG administrator following the procedures in sections 2.2 and 2.3.  A P-membership may be taken during the formation of a new ISO technical committee and its associated U.S. TAG.  Such membership shall be contingent upon subsequent completion and approval and accreditation of a U.S. TAG administrator and technical advisory group
3.4P3
Some NSBs may already have national committees in a field where new international projects are started and the NSB should use this existing national committee in a capacity as an NMC if it is interested in serving in such a capacity and able to fulfil the requirements of such a role.

BSI, Participation in int. standardization

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

5.6 UK participation in international and European standardization

It is generally expected that national member bodies will, as far as their needs
and resources dictate, maintain national technical committees that reflect the
same areas of interest as their international and European counterparts. These are usually termed “mirror committees”.

BSI committees (Clause 7) fulfil this function for the UK, as well as being responsible for standards of UK origin. They are responsible for appointing delegates to international and European technical committees and for
identifying and selecting appropriate experts to participate in the working groups.

With few exceptions, all enquiry drafts, including those for amendments, are issued as BSI drafts for public comment (DPC) (see 5.8).

BSI committees are responsible for reviewing the responses to the public consultation, for compiling UK national comments and for advising BSI on the votes to be returned on each project (see 5.4).

In the event of serious legitimate concerns about the proposed content of a European standard, particularly in terms of safety or in cases of apparent conflict with UK legislation or regulations, procedures can be invoked to try to resolve them. In such cases, advice should be sought from BSI staff as early in
the project as possible.

All those participating in work at international or European level are bound by the rules and protocols of the appropriate international or European standards body.

DIN, tasks of a standards committee

Guidelines for standards committees in DIN German institute for standardization, Berlin

2. Tasks of a standards committee
A standards committee is responsible for national standardization within its area(s) of work and expertise, and also participates in European and international standardization in these areas.
The standards committee supports the implementation of German Standards in its area(s) of work in all relevant aspects of life, and participates in certification activities.

3.4P4
The NSB should make every effort to identify the relevant stakeholders that should be engaged in the NMC and those stakeholders that the NSB has been engaged with early in the process, should be contacted at this stage to ensure continuity.

ANSI, formation of the US TAG

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

2.1.2  Formation of the U.S. TAG. 
The TAG administrator shall take the responsibility of contacting U.S. national interested parties who might reasonably be expected to be, or who indicate that they are, directly and materially affected by the ISO committee’s work, to solicit requests for membership on the U.S. TAG.  A notice of the formation of a U.S. TAG shall appear in ANSI’s Standards Action and other appropriate publications.

Requests for membership on the U.S. TAG shall be addressed to the TAG administrator.  A person not accepted for membership may appeal such decision within the appeals system established by the U.S. TAG and the related TAG Administrator, and thereafter to the ExSC.

AFNOR, Openness related requirements

AFNOR, Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators

Requirements

6.5.1 Openess related requirements

The standardisation bureau shall do its utmost in order to identify the relevant interest categories, shall seek out and appeal to the diverse organisations representing the latter in view of guaranteeing a balanced composition of the standardisation commission, in particular with regard to the very small enterprises (VSEs), the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the artisans (craft industries). The standardisation bureau shall communicate sufficient information to them in order to allow them to take a decision with full knowledge of the facts. Depending on the subject matters, the standardisation bureau shall inform more specifically the representatives of the bodies which represent predominantly social interests such as, in particular, the consumer associations, the trade unions and the approved environmental protection associations, in order to allow them to take part. The list of these bodies is made available by AFNOR.

The standardisation bureau shall see to it that the stakeholders identify themselves per category of interest and shall formalise, for each standardisation commission, the list of the stakeholders, experts and their categories of interest.

NOTE The AFNOR Administrative Board advisory committees, such as the Consumer committee, can aid in identifying representatives of these interest categories […]

DIN, Committees, member selection

Guidelines for standards committees in DIN German institute for standardization, Berlin

10.4 In selecting its members, the working committee shall ensure that:

a) its composition is suitable to the particular aspects of its work area,

b) the latest scientific findings and the current state of the art will be incorporated into the standards work carried out by the working committee,

c) the continuity of its work will be ensured – for this reason, members who are not present at three consecutive meetings, even if they send a representative, should be removed from the list of working committee members; members shall be notified of their removal from this list.

3.4P5
The composition of the NMC should demonstrate participation of representative organizations across the relevant stakeholders with a legitimate interest in the ISO subject.

ANSI, participation in activities of ISO

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

A5.1  Application.
A request for membership shall be addressed to the U.S. TAG administrator, shall indicate the applicant's direct and material interest in the U.S. TAG's work and willingness to participate actively (see A5.8), the applicant’s interest category, and, if the applicant is a representative of an organization, company, or government agency, shall identify an alternate, if desired.

A5.2  Recommendation. 
In recommending appropriate action on applications for membership, the administrator shall consider:
The appropriateness of the involvement of each interest in the work of the U.S. TAG
The potential for dominance by a single interest
The extent of interest expressed by the applicant, and the applicant's willingness to participate actively
The U.S. TAG administrator may consider reasonable limits on U.S. TAG size.

A5.3  Diverse Interests. 
If representatives from distinct divisions of an organization can demonstrate independent interests and authority to make independent decisions in the area of the activity of the U.S. TAG, each may apply for membership.

A5.4  Combined Interests.
When appropriate, the U.S. TAG administrator may recommend that the applicant seek representation through an organization that is already represented by a member who represents the same or similar interests.

A5.5  Observers. 
Individuals and representatives of organizations having an interest in the U.S. TAG's work may request listing as observers.  Observers shall be advised of the U.S. TAG activities, may attend meetings, and may submit comments for consideration, but shall not vote.

3.4P6
All members of the NMC should have equal participation rights and equal access to relevant information.

ANSI, participation in activities of ISO

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

A5  Membership
Membership shall be open to all U.S. national interested parties who indicate that they are directly and materially affected by the activity of the U.S. TAG, after being informed concerning U.S. TAG working procedures and scope of activities. There shall be no undue financial barriers to participation.  Administrative fees may be charged by the TAG administrator, but in all cases procedures for requesting a waiver of the fees must be available.  Participation shall not be conditional upon membership in any organization, or unreasonably restricted on the basis of technical qualifications or other such requirements.

A6.1 Open Meetings. 
Meetings of the U.S. TAG shall be open to all members and others having direct and material interest.  At least four weeks' notice of regularly scheduled meetings shall be given by the administrator in ANSI's Standards Action or in other media designed to reach directly and materially affected interests.  The notice shall describe the purpose of the meeting and shall identify a readily available source for further information.  An agenda shall be available and shall be distributed in advance of the meeting to members and to others expressing interest.

3.4P7
Attempts should be made to achieve balance with respect to the composition of the NMC. Procedures should exist to safeguard against dominance by any stakeholder or stakeholder category.

ANSI, representation of interests

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

A5.6  Representation of Materially Affected Interests. 
All directly and materially affected U.S. national interested parties shall have the opportunity for fair and equitable participation without dominance by any single interest.

Dominance means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation.  The requirement implicit in the phrase "without dominance by any single interest" normally will be satisfied if a reasonable balance among interests can be achieved.  Unless it is claimed by a directly and materially affected person that a single interest dominated the standards activity, to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints, no test for dominance is required.

SCC, balance of interests

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

7.3.3 Balance of Interests
SCC Mirror Committees shall make efforts to facilitate balanced representation of interest categories, typically producers, users, general interest, regulators and consumer and public interest representation as needed. This shall reflect Canadian national interests.

Note(s):
SCC may consider reasonable limits on SCC Mirror Committee size so as not to impair the ability of the SCC Mirror Committee to reach consensus or to ensure a properly functioning committee.
If stakeholders from distinct divisions of an organization can demonstrate independent interests and authority to make independent decisions in the area of activity of the SCC Mirror Committee, each may apply for membership.
Additional guidance on consumer and public interest representation is provided in Annex B, the ISO/IEC Statement on Consumer Representation in Standardization Work as well as CAN-P-1011, Participation in Standardization: A Guide for Consumer and Public Interest Representatives.

BSI, committee constitution

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

7.1 Principles

[…] BSI has a responsibility to maintain a fair and comprehensive balance of interests within each committee. The nature of the balance necessarily varies from committee to committee, but a committee in which one type of interest has a predominant influence is likely to be regarded as unbalanced.

There are areas of work for which it is difficult to achieve representation from a wide range of interest groups. In these cases it is important that representation on a committee is not limited to a single interest. As a general rule, there should be active participation by at least two parties whose interests do not coincide.

SPSC is the ultimate arbiter in cases of dispute about representation on a committee or a dispute between committees concerning their respective work programmes or terms of reference.

7.2 Committee constitution
The development of a British Standard is a collective endeavour that needs to involve a wide range of legitimate interests.

Committees have also to be able to draw upon a sufficiently deep understanding of their subject and of the needs of those likely to use a standard.

One of BSI’s objectives is to ensure that the committees fairly represent the range of interests affected by the standard, including users of the standard and consumers. For practical reasons, as well as to achieve a fair balance of interests, committees have to be restricted to a manageable size and it is necessary to set certain criteria for membership.

It is generally expected that those sitting on a committee will:
actively represent a collective body (nominating organization) that has a legitimate interest in the work of the committee; and
be able to demonstrate expertise in some areas of the committee’s work.

Other individuals, companies or organizations might be eligible for membership in an individual capacity if it can be demonstrated that their participation would be of wider benefit to the work of the committee and would not adversely affect the balance of decision making on it. Such membership is distinct from co-opted membership (see 7.4).

In exceptional circumstances, non-participating membership of a committee is permitted. This is only where an individual or organization can prove its need to monitor a particular work programme without being committed to full participation.

Committee membership is at the discretion of BSI. It cannot be claimed as of right. It is not normally granted to an organization or company seeking only to advance its own proprietary interest. Any individual or body deemed to be exploiting membership solely for its own commercial advantage is liable to be suspended or removed from membership.

The constitution of a committee comes under regular scrutiny by the committee itself and by BSI. Records are maintained of those invited to participate in its work. In order to encourage transparency, these records are made publicly available by BSI upon request. Anyone who considers that a committee does not represent the markets or interests affected by a particular standard can raise this with BSI using the complaints mechanism referred to in 8.7.

3.4P8
Once the mirror committee has been established, the composition of the committee should be reviewed regularly and additional stakeholders may be invited to participate throughout the life-cycle of the ISO work.

SA, committee constitution

Standardisation guide 015: Australian involvement in international standardisation

5.3 Committee constitution
A balanced constituted National Mirror Committee is established with representatives from an approved set of nominating organisations. In some instances the constituted National Mirror Committee may determine that it is appropriate to establish a SC or WG to review and provide comments and voting recommendations on the ISO or IEC documents. It is important that the composition of a SC or WG be reviewed on a regular basis (1), including a review of the representation on the group.

Additional details can be found in Standardisation Guide SG-002 Structure and Operations of Standardisation Committees.

1 NOTE: Annual review of the balance and composition of Standards Australia’s Committees is recommended

ANSI, review of membership

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

A5.9  Review of Membership. 
The U.S. TAG administrator shall review the membership list annually with respect to the criteria of A5.  Members are expected to participate actively by fulfilling attendance, voting, correspondence, and other obligations.  Where a member is found in default of these obligations, the U.S. TAG administrator shall direct the matter to the U.S. TAG for appropriate action, which may include termination of membership

BSI, committee constitution

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

7.2 Committee constitution

[…] The constitution of a committee comes under regular scrutiny by the committee itself and by BSI. Records are maintained of those invited to participate in its work. In order to encourage transparency, these records are made publicly available by BSI upon request. Anyone who considers that a committee does not represent the markets or interests affected by a particular standard can raise this with BSI using the complaints mechanism referred to in 8.7.

3.4P9
NSBs should provide suitable information, advice or training on ISO standardization to all members of the NMC.

SCC, training on standards development

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

7.3.2 Training on Standards Development

SCC Mirror Committee members shall seek out training on standards development in order to effectively participate in the deliberations of the Committee and in the standards development process. As a minimum, all SCC Mirror Committee members shall review the membership information package distributed by SCC when accepted as a committee member.


Note:
SCC offers a series of introductory training workshops to help committee members adapt to the ever-changing and challenging environment of their standards-related work. The list of workshops is available at http://www.scc.ca/en/get_involved/training

AFNOR, effectiveness requirements

AFNOR, Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators

6.7.3 Effectiveness-related requirements
[…]
The standardisation bureau shall ensure that the personnel assigned to take part in the working groups or in the standardisation commissions, concerning the technical fields being tackled, possess the competences inherent to these activities, thereby enabling them:

a) to be able to follow the discussions of the experts which take place during the actual normative work;

b) to be familiar with the international, European and French normative environment of their specific sector;

c) to know and implement the guidelines and procedures which govern these standardisation processes;

d) to master the standards drafting rules;

e) to be familiar with the standardisation documents followed by the standardisation commissions for which they are responsible;

f) to be acquainted with the basic standards required for their activities;

g) to know their principal foreign counterparts and to be known by them;

h) to be able to provide their advice on arguing and promoting the French positions, to encourage the expression of all the stakeholders, to mobilise competent experts, to capitalise on feedback regarding the use of the standardisation documents, including — where possible — that stemming directly from the users of the latter;

i) to have a sufficient command of the English language where participation in European or international work is required.

The standardisation bureau shall train its personnel accordingly and maintain their level of competence.
[…]

3.4P10
The NMC’s formation should be approved by the NSB, for example by senior management or by a governance group made up of relevant stakeholders.

ANSI, accreditation of US TAGs

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

2.4.1  Application. 
The U.S. TAG administrator shall submit an application for accreditation of the U.S. TAG, and for approval of the U.S. TAG administrator and the initial U.S. TAG membership list to the ExSC or its designee for approval.  The application shall include verification of the requirements found in section 2.3.1.2, the initial list of U.S. TAG members  and their representatives.

2.4.2  Public Review. 
A notice with regard to the application for approval of the U.S. TAG administrator, the U.S. TAG membership list and accreditation of the U.S. TAG shall be published in Standards Action with a call for comment.  Copies of the pertinent operating procedures, scope, and membership list shall be available from the applicant upon request.
Prompt consideration shall be given to the written views and objections of all participants, including those commenting on the listing in Standards Action.  An effort to resolve all expressed objections shall be made, and each objector shall be advised of the disposition of the objection and the reasons therefor.

2.5  Accreditation of U.S. TAGs

2.5.1  General.  U.S. TAGs shall be accredited by ANSI and must operate in compliance with the ANSI Criteria for the Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and IEC.

2.5.2  Criteria for Accreditation. 
U.S. TAG accreditation shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
The U.S. TAG is in compliance with the criteria for balance and openness as outlined in sections B4.1 and B4.2 of the ANSI Criteria for the Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and IEC (see Annex B)
The U.S. TAG operating procedures for developing and coordinating U.S. positions shall conform to the requirements of the ANSI Criteria for the Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and IEC (see Annex B)
The U.S. TAG administrator shall agree to assume the functions given in section 2.3.3

3.4P11
NMCs should maintain records of their decisions.

AFNOR, commission reports

AFNOR, Activity of the standardisation bureaux, principles, requirements and indicators

6.6 Requirements related to the building of the consensus

The standardisation bureau shall help the standardisation commission and its chairman to build the consensus.

It shall invite the representatives of the various interests involved to cooperate loyally to this end.

The standardisation bureau shall see to it that the basic points of the standpoints expressed, the decisions taken, the actions engaged and, if need be, the initiatives taken in order to obtain the consensus figure in the reports of the standardisation commissions.

In the event of dispute, the standardisation bureau shall register it, examine the nature and the extent of the disagreements expressed and shall give the appropriate follow-ups to it.

ANSI, annual reporting

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

2.5.5.2  Annual Reporting. 
An annual report shall be prepared by each U.S. TAG administrator, describing in summary narrative form the U.S. TAG activity during the past year.  The report shall be submitted to the ExSC or its designee no later than January 31 of the following year.  In satisfying this requirement, meeting minutes and other appropriate reports and documents may be incorporated or appended, or referred to if previously distributed by ANSI.  The annual report shall include:

1.  Information on meetings (including attendees), actions taken, and the work program

2.  Current TAG membership list which shall include:
a)  Title and designation of the U.S. TAG
b)  Scope of the U.S. TAG
c)  U.S. TAG administrator (name of organization, name of secretary, address(es), telephone number)
d)  U.S. TAG officers (chairman and other officers)
e)  Members:
i)   Names of the individuals and alternates (as applicable) and their addresses and business affiliations including names of the organizations they are representing on the U.S. TAG
ii)  The interest categories of the U.S. TAG shall be defined and the category of each member identified

3.  A list of any problems encountered during the past year in the functioning of the U.S. TAG or U.S. TAG administration, and any areas in which the U.S. TAG administrator requires assistance by ANSI

4.  An express certification by the U.S. TAG administrator that the U.S. TAG has been and continues to be operated in a manner that complies with all applicable ANSI and ISO procedures

5.  The results of any self-audit held during the past year

If the U.S. TAG or TAG Administrator has a concern with either the conduct or results of a self-audit completed to assure adherence to its own procedures and applicable ANSI and ISO criteria and procedures, it may be brought to the attention of the ExSC.

Guidance

To assist in achieving these principles, the following guidance may be helpful :

3.4G1
Relevant stakeholders to be contacted and invited to participate will depend on the subject matter of the ISO activity. Examples of how this may be approached may include enquiries, Internet searches, networks, personal approaches, advertisements, etc.
3.4G2
For NSB senior management or a governance group made up of relevant stakeholders to approve the establishment of the NMC, the following information should be provided:
  1. Background and justification for the ISO activity;
  2. Scope of the proposed ISO activity
  3. Proposed NMC membership
  4. A clear statement for the level of participation (P or O) in the ISO activity
  5. A work programme or business plan of the ISO activity
  6. A commitment of sufficient resources in place in order to establish and operate the NMC.
3.4G3
For the purposes of openness and transparency, the procedure for the establishment of a NMC should be made publicly available (e.g. through the NSB Website, presentations, experts communicating within the community, etc.)
3.4G4
NMC members should be encouraged to develop their knowledge of standardization operations and procedures. This could be achieved via introductory information packages, training and education sessions, mentoring programs, IT tools, etc.
3.4G5
The consensus development process of NSBs and NMCs should be open to all who are directly and materially affected by the standardization activity in question. Any stakeholder may contribute via public review and comment without joining the NMC if it wishes, but it is the responsibility of the NMC to develop the national consensus positions. This includes an obligation to consider input received from the public review and comment. There should be no undue financial barriers to participation. If a fee for participation is charged, then it should be reasonable and fair. A fee waiver or fee reduction option is encouraged. Where potential funding sources for participating (underrepresented) stakeholders are known, such information should be made available as appropriate.

 

This section provides principles and guidance for NSBs on the selection, qualifications and training of NMC Chairs and NMC secretaries, for NSBs that choose to use an NMC approach.

Principles

3.5P1
The selection of the chair and secretary of a new NMC should take place as soon as possible after the establishment of the new ISO committee and decision is taken to establish a new NMC.

ANSI, officers of a US TAG

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

A4  Officers
There shall be a chairman, and other officers if required, either appointed by the U.S. TAG administrator from the individual members of the U.S. TAG, subject to approval by a majority vote of the U.S. TAG, or nominated and elected by the members of the U.S. TAG.  Each will serve until a successor is selected and ready to serve.  The secretary shall be appointed by the U.S. TAG administrator.

3.5P2
Once the establishment of the NMC is approved, the NSB or a governance group of relevant stakeholders may assign the secretariat role for the NMC to an internal staff member or outsource the secretariat role to an external organization. Where the secretariat role for the NMC is outsourced, an agreement should  be signed between the NSB and the external organization, and there should be ongoing monitoring by the NSB, to ensure good performance.

ANSI, US TAG Administrator

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of ISO (Jan 2008)

2.3 U.S. TAG Administrator

2.3.1  Approval of a U.S. TAG Administrator. 
The ExSC, upon recommendation of its designee if any, shall make all decisions concerning the assignment of U.S. TAG administrators for all U.S. TAGs, including the granting, continuance, or withdrawal of assignment to an external organization or to ANSI in accordance with section 2.4.  ANSI normally looks to the body that develops national standards in a particular standards area to serve as the U.S. TAG administrator.

In determining the assignment of a U.S. TAG administrator, the ExSC and its designee shall follow the guiding principle that assignment shall be made to an external organization wherever reasonably possible, pursuant to the criteria in 2.3.1.2.

2.3.1.1  Assignment of U.S. TAG Administrator to ANSI. 
Assignment as U.S. TAG administrator shall be accepted by ANSI itself if affected interests have made a financial commitment for not less than three years covering all defined costs incurred by ANSI associated with the U.S. TAG administrator assignment, and if:
The affected technical sector, organizations or companies, including an existing U.S. TAG, request that ANSI perform this function, or
There is no external organization eligible pursuant to the criteria in 2.3.1.2, or
Circumstances otherwise dictate that ANSI itself serve as U.S. TAG administrator consistent with the best interests of effective U.S. participation in ISO standards activities

2.3.1.2  Assignment of U.S. TAG Administrator to an External Organization. 
The ExSC and its designee if any, when considering the assignment of a U.S. TAG administrator to an external organization, shall determine that the following criteria are met:
The external organization is a member of ANSI
The external organization possesses the requisite technical competence related to the technical activity
The external organization has adequate resources to administer the U.S. TAG
The external organization is willing to make a three year commitment to cover all costs associated with serving as U.S. TAG administrator, including the defined costs incurred by ANSI for administrative support, oversight and supervision of the assigned U.S. TAG administrator
The external organization has agreed to follow all applicable ANSI and ISO procedures
The external organization has agreed to comply with the requirements associated with ANSI oversight and supervision of the activities of all parties serving as U.S. TAG administrators in accordance with 2.5.4
As long as these criteria are met, the U.S. TAG administrator will retain the administrative responsibilities.  The ExSC shall make all decisions concerning exceptions to the above criteria.

BSI, committee secretaries

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

8.4 Committee secretaries

Committee secretaries are responsible for ensuring that all necessary administrative arrangements are made in order for a committee to function efficiently and effectively. In particular they are responsible for:
issuing notices and agendas for meetings; b) taking minutes of meetings and ensuring that actions arising are followed up;
offering procedural advice; and
acting as the principal interface with BSI.

Most committee secretaries are BSI staff members. Committee secretaries can be provided by industry through a formal agreement with BSI, in which case they are allocated a BSI contact person for advice, guidance and general interface.

Where neither of these arrangements apply, the functions of committee secretary are shared between a specific BSI team, the committee chairman and individual members of the committee, as from time to time agreed between them.

3.5P3
NMC chairs are selected on the basis of their chairing abilities, willingness and availability to be committed for the duration of a project, subject matter knowledge and understanding of ISO. Where possible, chairs should be selected from amongst the members of the NMC.

SCC, criteria for mirror committee chair

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

8.1 Criteria for an SCC Mirror Committee Chair
The SCC Mirror Committee Chair shall be:
willing and able to devote the time to the work required in order to achieve effective involvement of the committee in meeting its responsibilities;
knowledgeable in the subject matter of the committee to coordinate comments, formulate technical decisions, and make recommendations which have been developed by consensus; aware of national and international implications, application, and limitations of the international committee work;
able and prepared to act as Head of Delegation to international meetings of the Technical Committee or Subcommittee as required;
fluent speaker and writer in order to express effectively the Canadian position, and the personal attributes to enable them to negotiate compromises advantageous to Canada.

BSI, committee chairman qualities

BSI, A standard for standards, Principles of standardization BS 0:2011

8.3 Committee chairmen
8.3.2 Qualities
Whilst a chairman is expected to have at least the level of technical expertise that is commensurate with membership of the committee, it is not expected that he or she will necessarily be the pre-eminent technical expert. However, especially in the case of committees responsible for a wide subject range, it is desirable for a chairman to have a sound working knowledge of the full extent of the committees technical interests. It is also desirable to have an understanding of the application of the standards for which the committee is responsible, and of the markets in which they are used.

Together with being an effective communicator and competent manager of meetings, the principal qualities sought in a chairman are the abilities:
to lead and to listen
to assimilate and evaluate complex information quickly
to see all sides of an argument
to be able to reconcile opposing arguments and to forge an acceptable consensus
to win and maintain the support and respect of colleagues.

8.3.3 Appointment of chairmen
Chairmen serve for terms of three years, which may be renewed by mutual agreement. They are appointed by their committees’ immediately senior committees: in the case of a subcommittee, by the appropriate technical committee; in the case of a technical committee, by SPSC.

Appointments are usually made on the basis of a nomination by BSI staff, after an evaluation of candidates against the criteria discussed in 8.3.2. Interviews are often held for this purpose. It is usual to consult a committee as to its views on the chairmanship, but elections are not held and the committee’s views are not binding on BSI.

Chairmen are usually appointed from within the committee membership, but there might be occasions when this is either not appropriate or not feasible. Prior membership of a committee is not an absolute requirement for appointment to its chairmanship.

AFNOR, président de commission (fr)

AFNOR, Règles pour la normalisation française, Partie 1: Instances et procédures de travail .

1.5.4.3 Président de commission de normalisation

NOTE Les missions, compétences/connaissances attendues et engagements des présidents de commission de normalisation sont précisés en annexe A.1.5.4.2 et A.1.5.4.3.

1.5.4.3.1 Mode de désignation
Le bureau de normalisation doit désigner un président de commission de normalisation pour une durée déterminée ; une durée de 3 ans renouvelable est recommandée.
Le bureau de normalisation notifie au président sa nomination en lui rappelant que le vade-mecum qu’il a reçu comporte les obligations qui s'attachent à sa fonction.

ANNEX A
A.1.5.4.3 Fiche « Président de commission de normalisation »

A.1.5.4.3.1 Missions
a) Vous contribuez à l’élaboration du plan d’actions de votre commission.
b) Vous êtes responsable de la conduite du programme de travail de votre commission dans le respect des objectifs et des délais définis par celle-ci.
c) Vous vous assurez que pour tout nouveau sujet, les enjeux et les objectifs ont été identifiés.
d) Vous conduisez les travaux en vue d'obtenir un accord consensuel.
e) Vous pouvez être amené à représenter votre commission auprès d’entreprises, sociétés ou organismes extérieurs.
f) Vous veillez à ce que le niveau technique des normes soit cohérent avec celui du secteur considéré et que les contraintes économiques et réglementaires soient prises en compte.
g) Vous organisez la participation française aux travaux européens ou internationaux.
h) Vous vérifiez régulièrement l’adéquation de votre commission aux travaux (composition, ampleur du programme, organisation).
A.1.5.4.3.2 Compétences/connaissances
a) Vous maîtrisez votre domaine de compétence technique et vous avez une bonne connaissance des enjeux stratégiques et économiques du secteur concerné par les travaux de la commission.
b) Vous connaissez les procédures de travail et les règles sur le contenu des normes.
c) Vous animez les réunions en recherchant le consensus.

3.5P4
NMC secretaries are selected on the basis of their knowledge of ISO rules and procedures, availability of adequate resources to manage the NMC and willingness to be committed for the duration of a project.
3.5P5
The NMC chair and secretary have the primary responsibility to act in a neutral manner to facilitate the NMC’s decision-making and to ensure: that all relevant stakeholders on the NMC have fair and equitable access to information, that they have an opportunity to provide input, and that consideration of their input is given in the development of the national position.

SCC, Responsibilities of NMC chair

SCC, CAN-P-7: 2011, International Standards Development, Canadian participation in ISO and IEC

8.5 Responsibilities of an SCC Mirror Committee Chair
The Chair’s responsibilities include but are not limited to:
Determine qualifications and suitability of membership requests and assist SCC in membership decisions;
In consultation with SCC, or appropriate SDO, appoint a Vice-Chair or Designated Alternate;
Act in a neutral capacity and provide the consensus recommendation of the SCC Mirror Committee membership on comment documents and voting ballots;
Coordinate, collate and submit SCC Mirror Committee comments and voting recommendations by the time frames specified to the SCC on the electronic workspace using the appropriate templates;
Ensure that SCC Mirror Committee members comply with their responsibilities and take necessary action as appropriate, including requests to SCC for member removal;
Respond to SCC requests for any committee related guidance;
Provide SCC with formal nominations to accredit Canadian delegations to participate in Technical and Subcommittee meetings;
Be prepared to act as Head of Delegation, or to appoint a Head of Delegation to international meetings of the Technical Committee, Subcommittee, or JTC1 Working Group;
Provide SCC with formal nominations of Canadian experts wishing to participate in Working Groups, Maintenance Teams or Project Teams;
Ensure that SCC is provided with a Head of Delegation report following a meeting attended by SCC Mirror Committee delegates (Annex C Head of Delegation (HoD) Report);
Submit to SCC an Annual Report on the activities of the SCC Mirror Committee;
Call an SCC Mirror Committee meeting (may be in person, teleconference etc.) when deemed necessary and ensure that notices and minutes of all meetings are posted on the SCC electronic workspace;
Recommend to SCC any change of status on the Technical Committee and/or its related Subcommittee(s) as needed. Such a recommendation should be based on the results of the evaluation of the need for Canadian participation in the technical work;
Submit to SCC proposals from the SCC Mirror Committee for Canada to host international meetings in Canada for any Technical Committee or Subcommittee.

Submit to SCC for approval, proposals from the SCC Mirror Committee to introduce new work items or to provide an offer from Canada to accept Technical Committee Secretariats, Subcommittee Secretariats, or Working Group Convenorships.

AFNOR, président de commission (fr)

AFNOR, Règles pour la normalisation française, Partie 1: Instances et procédures de travail .

ANNEX A
A.1.5.4.3 Fiche « Président de commission de normalisation »

A.1.5.4.3.3 Engagements
a) Vous agissez dans le respect des règles de la normalisation.
b) Vous coordonnez les travaux de la commission.
c) Vous faites preuve d'impartialité.
d) Vous donnez à chacun l’opportunité d’exprimer son point de vue.
e) Vous reformulez et synthétisez les points de vue exprimés.
f) Vous veillez à ce que les décisions soient formalisées et respectées.
g) Vous veillez à ce que l’existence de brevets connus des experts soit communiquée à la commisssion de normalisation et que les actions nécessaires soient entreprises.
h) Vous vous conformez aux règles en matière de droits d’auteur en vigueur.
i) Vous veillez à travailler en bonne coopération avec le secrétaire de la commission de normalisation.
j) Vous contribuez à la promotion des travaux de votre commission.

Guidance

To assist in achieving these principles, the following guidance may be helpful:

3.5G1
The selection process for NMC chairs and secretaries is a very important part in establishing an effective NMC. For this reason, steps should be taken to ensure that the selection is highly informed, e.g. by clearly placing the issue on the agenda of the first meeting.
3.5G2
NMC chairs and secretaries are appointed by the NSB, in some cases on the basis of a nomination and approval process within the NMC.
3.5G3
Effective chairing abilities are the most important skills for an NMC chair. These abilities include managing the NMC’s decision-making processes, effectively resolving disagreements, guiding the NMC to consensus, and managing meetings and discussions that cross stakeholder categories and perspectives. Training for NMC chairs should, inter alia, focus on the enhancement of these skills.
3.5G4
Extensive knowledge of ISO rules and procedures are the most important skills for NMC secretaries. This includes knowledge of the ISO/ IEC Directives, the ability to use the required IT tools and good drafting skills. Training for secretaries should, inter alia, focus on the enhancement of these skills.
3.5G5
Training for both chairs and secretaries can be provided through any number of means such as manuals, seminars, workshops, training courses, and individual advice upon request. This also includes ensuring that the NMC is well informed regarding the expected duties of chairs and secretaries.
3.5G6
It may be useful for the NSB to facilitate information exchanges among chairs and secretaries across all of the NSB’s NMCs, to promote the sharing of experiences and good practices. This can be done via seminars and workshops or via online tools.
3.5G7
NSBs have a responsibility to ensure that chairs and secretaries are aware of their roles and responsibilities both nationally and internationally.
3.5G8
NSBs should also ensure that they regularly update chairs and secretaries on any developments or changes (e.g. ISO/IEC Directives) that may impact the work of the NMC.

 

AFNOR
Association Française de Normalisation (French Association for Standardization)

ANSI
American National Standards Institute

BSI
British Standards Institution

CD
Committee draft

DIN
Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization)

DIS
Draft international standard

FDIS
Final draft international standard

IEC
International Electrotechnical Commission

 

IRG
International review group

ISO
International Organization for Standardization

IT
Information technology

NMC
National mirror committee

NSB
National standards body

PC
Project committee

PEG
Process evaluation group

SA
Standards Australia

SABS
South African Bureau of Standards

SC
Subcommittee

SCC
Standards Council of Canada

SIS
Swedish standards institute

SNZ
Standards New Zealand

TAG
Technical advisory group

TC
Technical committee

WG
Working group