From owner-sc35wg4+sc35wg4-domo=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Jan 29 20:04:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc35wg4-domo Delivered-To: sc35wg4-domo@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id C3B2E356E10; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:04:14 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc35wg4@open-std.org Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com (mail-qc0-f170.google.com [209.85.216.170]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B00C356D54; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:04:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id e9so3488074qcy.29 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:04:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type; bh=G9MDk7RvsIV6IVMEfQvJwqKHn04UNyC5p/Pf9VZaDig=; b=znxZ/A57k8Qd2CX+EwVPmZp87N5FD1vNbisxKFO207NW9S3pgyIjL2G1Qr65UzHjT4 3M0jG6u86vncT34vPVkKVctpklrC6SvCZmmo8+xuLYoZIlaF8YA84S0NktU6l5wRr/Nq qw6vjWWjpgE7d1qiVop9XnUBuQiab50XKFrPq72/2rQHqgrgZoS1jj9GmczIz5Pkkvt+ cTAI2Hig2Wptht/8kqk/A1GANkH5FZQKB6pa38mfenn7t/VWMhJMQzSpiAO9GHyPjFkI hWX3Em4WcwDdoUCZ4nglLEd7pAl1z6lfxosLnsvFAdEEFZYA7KVBnjRSFWBX3Atuqiqp YDBg== X-Received: by 10.224.72.11 with SMTP id k11mr1150665qaj.91.1391022251927; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from Ovonel.gmail.com (modemcable096.160-200-24.mc.videotron.ca. [24.200.160.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z9sm4699798qgz.20.2014.01.29.11.04.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:04:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20140129134920.07ae0948@gmail.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:02:38 -0500 To: ,, ,,, ,, From: ALB Subject: Re: (SC35WG1.509) RE: (SC35WG4.82) (SC35WG2.17) JTC1/SC35 meeting - Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014 Cc: ,, ,,, Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1075480923==.ALT" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140128-1, 2014-01-28), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-sc35wg4@open-std.org Precedence: bulk --=====================_1075480923==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Philippe, good informative contribution. I was never aware of those default ballots held for GOM resolutions, it means that at least in Canada, our Standards Council (SCC/CCN) was not even posting them for vote to our Canadian forum and our vote was the approval by default (that's the way default ballots work, right?). I think I would be aware if I had seen them because I'm responsible for Canadian SC35 ballot responses since the founding of the SC. Fine to me if it is the price to pay. Question: can we then hold 2-week maximum letter ballots for resolutions ? So far GOM' recommendations were also always identified as resolutions without protest (they were not identified as mere WG recommendations because they were the fact of operational plenaries indeed) balloted by the same NBs present at Plenaries. I continue to believe that such GOMs are better than dispersed WG recommendations not gathered in a focused place as we always did. SC2/WG2 votes "resolutions" at its meetings. They are never default-letter-balloted later on to my knowledge. They are executory and executed. Since I participate in this WG (decades ago), there has never been a complaint about this, so I guess that is why it is working. I like such an efficient way of doing. GOMs are adapted to SC35 to do this. Alain ___________________________________________ Le 2014-01-28 à 16:49, magnabosco philippe a écrit : >Dear all > > > >Thank you for your contributions and positions on this matter. I >should like to underline a few points: > > > >· Coordination between working groups of SC 35 is an >objective that has always been pursued by the SC 35 management and secretariat. > >· In the past, when General operational meetings were held >under the leadership of the SC 35 Chair but without secretariat >support, proposed resolutions were in fact formally drafts that were >not executory immediately but were submitted to a yes-by-default >ballot of P-Members. (see attached example from 2008 and its >Procedure reminder language on page 2) > >o Many of the SC 35 resolutions are taken to acknowledge >progression of work and do not need to be resolutions to be acted upon. > >o Some resolutions of SC 35 are formal requirements as per >directives, they need to be approved by members at the time of GOMs >and will need to be approved in the present situation as well before >they become executory. This does not mean that their execution >cannot be prepared by whomever is the addressee of the resolution if >the outcome of the vote is 99% secure, as is so often the case. > >· Looking at SC 35 resolutions of the past 2 meetings, I do >see a handful of resolutions that really cut across SC 35 WGs and >impact them all at once. Resolutions on target dates, drafting >policy come to mind. A much larger number of resolutions are >proposed by single working groups, or by an association of WGs under >the leadership of one WG (e.g. WG 5 for Voice commands, WG 1 for >Gesture-based interfaces). Many of these (e.g. Mr X is asked to >prepare a contribution on Z) need not be SC resolutions and need no >SC-level coordination. > >· I will be happy to propose a common basis reg. target >dates or other cross-cutting issues of SC 35 for WGs to refer to in >Barcelona and use in their proposed resolutions. > > > >· ISO/IEC Directives and JTC 1 Supplement do not recognize >WG "resolutions". WGs can make recommendations that their own WG >experts, WG convenor or WG secretariat support (if any) acts upon as >they please, within their range of competence as WGs. Calling those >resolutions is a facility of language that is sometimes misleading. >"Resolutions" are decisions by a body that has national >representations, with national votes cast by nominated Heads of >delegation: these bodies are typically TCs, SCs (and of course TMB). >I am sure SC 2 makes it a point to make sure that decisions that are >SC remit are taken at SC llevel, and do not stay mere WG >"resolutions". I have elsewhere seen cases where the distinction was >not clear enough and resolutions could therefore have been challenged. >As said above, some of the SC 35 resolutions could easily remain WG >recommendations or decisions and be just as valid if they were not >adopted as SC 35 resolutions. > > > > > >Best regards, > > > >Philippe MAGNABOSCO > >Secrétaire/Secretary > > CEN/WS ICT Skills > > ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 35 > > ISO TC 46/WG 2 > >AFNOR Normalisation - DTEC > >11 rue Francis de Pressensé > >93571 La Plaine-Saint Denis > >+33 (0)1 41 62 85 02 > > > > > > > >De : owner-sc35wg4@open-std.org >[mailto:owner-sc35wg4@open-std.org] De la part de Khalid CHOUKRI >Envoyé : mardi 28 janvier 2014 14:33 >À : ALB; >yoshikazu-seki@aist.go.jp; >jeeink@gmail.com; >monique.mai@orange.com; >keld@keldix.com; >carter@cs.usask.ca; >thibault.grouas@culture.gouv.fr >Cc : sc35wg1@open-std.org; magnabosco >philippe; mouradi amelle; >sc35wg2@open-std.org; >sc35wg4@open-std.org; >sc35wg6@open-std.org; >sc35wg8@open-std.org >Objet : (SC35WG4.82) (SC35WG2.17) JTC1/SC35 meeting - Barcelona, >week of 10 February 2014 > > > >Hi Alain > >ALB wrote, On 27/01/2014 21:03: > > The only misunderstanding, Khalid, is about the resolution > meeting that has been going on smoothly in the past years in > absence of the secretary for interim meetings (non-Plenary with an > upper-case P). AFNOR had come with a concept, the GOM (General > Orientation meeting, a small plenary, in fact a resolution meeting) > which was (and should continue to be according to the reactions > seen) a resolution meeting after WG meetings. The resolutions were > then executable immediately without the need for a letter ballot > (which would be an extra administrative burden, as P- countries > have quorum to decide directcly at the meeting). > > >I fully understand the position. The GOM as described herein and the >plans to have a resolution meeting (with adoptions voted on site) >requires the participation of all P-members. In my views the >Intermediate meeting I introduced was not to require the presence of >national representatives but only experts ; > > > > The only case where I have seen a resolution being sent for > letter ballot after a meeting is recent, when the resolution had > not been noted in official resolutions of a meeting and adoption > then remaining uncertain. If this would becore a custom, that would > be is an uncessary delay, an extra element thant would make sure > things will not be done on time. But in a GOM, resolutions were > always adopted by HoDs of represented countries. There is no reason > to fix what is not broken, and thisGOM process has always been > working very well so far, it is very far to be broken. On the > contrary, if we modify this process, other things will be more > broken than ever, imho. > > >The whole discussion we had since last meeting in Busan was to bring >the SC35 activities to a ONE annual (and Plenary) meeting like many >other SCs and technical work being done via email/telco, at >conferences, etc.. and this is a challenge that all agreed to >pursue. We did not want to fix something (though I am still annoyed >by the way we manage our daily activities) but rather move to a new >way of doing things. > > > > > > What is broken is that many times resolutions are not executed > promptly, without me wanting here to discuss about responsibilities > (which are not always the fact of one person). Our goal should be > that resolutions be executed so that the work be done and > publications achieved. This process is broken, still, and should be > fixed as smoothly as possible. > > >We have now agreed with AFNOR (SC35 secretariat) to monitor the >management of our actions (and resolutions) more carefully. Philippe >will send us the URL of a web page where he puts our action list and >the corresponding execution (Philippe: could you please recirculate this again) > > > > GOMS are a winning process and should continue for interim > meetings. This is what I had understood in Saskatoon, and it seems > it was understood by others too (so far unanimously), according to > the reactions seen of the WG1 forum. > > >Well I am surprised to see that (and hope this is only WG1!) , let >us discuss it again and see how to move forward. > >Best regards >Khalid > > > >Alain >______________________________________ >Le 2014-01-26 à 08:22, Khalid Choukri a écrit : > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Dear colleagues > >Let me first express some astonishment regarding the reactions I >have read since Alain's email about the plenary versus >GOM meetings, and our SC35 plans. > >I think we devote time to discuss this issue in Saskatoon and >reviewed all arguments pros and cons and the main conclusion was >that we head to an annual meeting with a plenary, a WG meetings, and >a resolution session; all running over 4 to 5 days. > >The intermediate meeting (the one in February this year) would be >turned into a meeting of experts as required by the corresponding WG >agenda (which means some WGs would skip that meeting if no item >requires a face to face meeting). > > >So again, the proposed modus operandi as We discussed it in >Saskatoon would be: > >1/ (As long as necessary) a winter/spring technical meeting to >address and make progress on technical matters that may (or not) >lead to resolutions. This could be an opportunity to finalize WG >reports that require face to face meeting of all experts. > >2/ An annual meeting with a plenary session to review the work >progress, including the secretariat work and WG resolutions > >3/ if a decision/action is taken during the technical meeting, the >secretariat will turn this into a resolution and bring it to >adoption (electronic vote) and ensure its execution, > >We also discussed the scheduling of our meetings and many >requirements and desiderata were expressed: I would like to ensure >participation of all delegates (which excludes the major holiday >seasons e.g. Christmas, Chinese new year, etc.) and necessitates a >consensus for two-three years in advance. > >I have asked Philippe to circulate the details of the Barcelona >meeting, I hope we will get it tomorrow (Monday). I understand that >most of us are upset because of the missing agenda and plans 10 days >before the meeting. I hope that you made your arrangements for your >flights and will share with you informations on accommodations this week. > >Best regards >Khalid > > > > Le 26 janv. 2014 à 11:13, Yoshikazu SEKI >

a écrit : > > > > Dear All, >B ˆH[ÛÈÝ\Ü€t Alain's position. > > > > We need to gather conclusions of WGs' meetings somehow, and also > need to have opportunity to know WGs' activities. We also need to > decide consolidated next actions after the meeting. > > >˜\ÙYÛˆÓÀM model, we can have Resolutions even in the meeting where >the secretary is absent. > > >™\Ý™YØ\™ËB ˆB‚ðshikazu Seki >B ˆB ˆŒMÌKÌ ˆMÎ Nxà O[Ûš\]YK›XZPÀrange.com> > ã ®ãƒ¡ãƒ¼ãƒ«ï¼š >B€>> Dear all, >ˆB ‚f—'7BöbÆÂÂ'v÷VÆBÆ¶RFòv—6‚you a happy new year 2014 (sorry for >sending this message late (my dad pass away at the end of 2013 and I >was pretty busy in the begin of the new year.) > >B ˆÙ[ÙHneed a "strong cooperation between WG's in SC35" and I > fully understand, support Allan's position. >ˆB ‚öb6ðurse, the model adapted during the last session can save of >course expenses. Nethertheless, it really seems to me that the needs >of a global meeting for having an overview of the activities of the >different subgroup and the opportunity to get an exchange in face to >face could be e an opportunity to wrap up the seminar, stimulate by >this method the cooperation and a team spirit within the SC35. The >collective creativity can emerge and I am sure it could be finally >an opportunity to stimulate all the energies in favour our >trementous goal "the accessibility". > >B€>> If it is necessary, I propose to help Allan or to act for > writting the resolutions if Philippe is not here (of course with his support). > >B ˆ]YHÛ›ÝÈYˆ\Èroposal can help ; my current vision is that a > tremendous job was done and the cohesion of the SC35 is essential. >ˆB ‚f÷"÷W"æf÷&ÖFöâÂFVæ—26Œ:¦æRæB×—6VÆbttend the Barcelone >meeting. We really think that we have to take in account the Allan, >Keld, Jim comments. >ˆ@ > >™\Ý™YØ\™ËB ‚Ð£ãâÖöæ—VPÐ£ãâÐ ø€4(ø > >> > > > >B ˆBƒâÐ£Q"€è ½Ý¹•ÈµÍŒÌÕÝœÅ½U¸µÍÑ ¹½Éœ mµ„ilto:owner-sc35wg1@open-s > td.org] De la part de ALB > >[€voyé : samedi 25 janvier 2014 14:41 >ˆ0àˆÙ[Ù[^.com; Jee-In Kim > >> Cc : Carter, James; Khalid CHOUKRI; > sc35wg1@open-std.org; > philippe.magnabosco@afnor.org; > amelle.mouradi@afnor.org > >Øš™]ˆ >ÐÌÍUÑÌK NJH'Nˆ˜Y Agenda - JTC1/SC35/WG1 meeting - Barcelona, week of >10 February 2014 > >B ˆHŒMLKL H0èŒMËÙ[Ù[^˜Àom écrit: > >>X\ˆ[BƒãâÐ øø $ …±Í¼ ÍÕA½ÉÐ ±…¥¸œs propositions. >ˆBƒãâ'æ÷FRF†BF†Rtw2vÆÂ†fP resolutions, and that these resolutions should > >ˆ™HÀarried out bu the SC without unnessecary delay, eg. confirmed via a > >>ÐÈ]\ˆ˜[Ý\ÈÙH\ÙHÈÈÚ[ˆÙ@ run GOMs. > >> >ˆÐ[Z[—H[ˆ˜XÝY \ˆ[ÓÓ\Ë™\Àolutions were executed, we have not done >letter ballots to vote on these resolutions later on. > >B ˆ ]Ú[ˆa ballot was called by a resolution for a NP, CD, DIS, > PDTR, etc,, this ballot was done without extra formality . This is > the typical situation for most resolutions. >ˆ@ > >\È\ÈH[ÜÝY™šXÚY[ Ø^HÈ›ØÙYY[Z›B ˆ >ˆ[Z[ƒB ˆBƒãâ&W2&Vv&G0Ð£àø -•± 4(>> >‚öà Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Jee-In Kim wrote: >‚FV"ÆÂ£ãàø€4(ø>> I also support Alain's position and interpretation. >‚Ð£ãàø ]" É•…±±ä ¹•• „ ÍÐrong cooperation between WG's in SC35. > > ˆ›Üˆ^[\K we received a lot of valuable comments from experts in > all WG's in SC35 to the 30113 series of gesture interfaces. That > seems to me one of the great advantages of the GOM model. I expect > that we need more cooperation in the future. > >>ˆB ƒãâÇ6òÂvR6â&RfW''&öGV7F—fRv—F‚F€e GOM model while relieving > burdens and expenses of the secretariat. This seems a very > practical solution to me. > >>ˆB ƒãâ&W7B£àøø )•"µ%¸ -¥´€¡¥A… ¤4(ø>> >‚#14. 1. 24. Ïóòs£b$6'FW"Â¦ÖW2"Æ6'FW$72çW66²æ0a> >??ÏàÐ£ãàø€4(ø>>H™[Y]™H]\™H\™H˜\š[Ý\À interpretations of what we >discussed. Alain definitely discussed the GOM model as a means of >meeting without plenary in the Saskatoon discussions. Given the >context of history within SC35, many participants have a valid >expectation that that was what was agreed to. > > ‚Ð£ãàøø I•œards, Jim >ƒâg&öÓ¢¶†ÆB4„õTµ$'¶6†÷V·&"VÆFæ÷&uÐÐ > > ‚6VçC¢#B¦çV''#B3£3PÐ£ãàøø Q¼è >…ÉÑ•È° )…´es; ALB; sc35wg1@open-std.org > > ‚63¢†Æ—RæÖvæ&ðsco@afnor.org; > amelle.mouradi@afnor.org >ƒâ7V&¦V7C¢e: (SC35WG1.492) Draft Agenda - JTC1/SC35/WG1 meeting - >Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014 > >> ˆBƒãàø !¤ )¥´4 > > ‚Ð£ãàøø Q¡¥Ì ¥Ì Ý¡…Ð Ý" '¥Í ÕÍÍ• …±° Ñ½ •Ñ¡•È ‰½Ðh in Busan and > Saskatoon and, after the discussions, I announced that we are > heading towards an annual plenary meeting with, as many as > required, technical meetings. >€> The agreement was that we have our plenaries in the summer (end >of June, early July) and a technical one in February this time. >ƒâÐ£àøø Philippe: Could you please circulate the info on the >February meeting >ƒâÐ£à>>B ƒãâ&W7B&Vv&G2FòÆÂ£àøø Khalid > >> ˆB€>>ˆØ\ \‹˜[Y\ÈÜ›ÝKÛˆ ÌKÌŒM ÎƒB ƒãd€strongly agree with Alain > that the GOM model that we have historically used works well to > promote the well being and success of SC35 and that to do less > would be to invite major problems in the working and success of SC35. >€>> >ƒãâ&Vv&G2Â¦ÐÐ øø>> ________________________________ > > ƒâg&öÓ¢Ä"¶Æ&öävÖ¦6öÕÐÐ øø>> Sent: 23 January 2014 08:25 >ƒãâFó¢¶†ÆB4„õTµ$"²633Pwg1@open-std.org > >> ‚63¢†Æ—RæÖvæ&÷66ôfæ÷"æ÷ g; > amelle.mouradi@afnor.org; Carter, James >ƒãâ7V&¦V0t: Re: (SC35WG1.492) Draft Agenda - JTC1/SC35/WG1 meeting - >Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014 > > ƒâÐ£àøø> Khalid, >ƒãâÐ øø>> OK, I updated the timeframe of the agenda (see attached >file, 2nd draft agenda). > > ƒâÐ > > ƒâ†÷vWfW"'F†æ²F†BF†W&R6†÷VÆB&RÒÒ2vR†`e always done -- a P > plenary session at the end to have consolidated resolutions, not > dispersed resolutions in each WG (AFNOR used to call such a meeting > a GOM [General Orientation Meeting, a term invented by them for > meetings where the secretariat was absent, a situation with which > we got used to and to which we adapted as it seemed the best > solution in this case] when it was not a formal Plenary). Otherwise > I strongly fear that SC35 will be weakened, disorganized, and > incoherent between formal plenaries (we need to be sure that > decisions will be cared about and focused in a central point). The > sentiment of "belonging" will also vanish, and groups will feel > autonomous (let's then form a different SC !) or not cared about > (one situation or the other, not much in between). The net result, > imho, will be that interest in attendance could go down. That is my > experience of JTC1 meetings since more than a quarter century. > >> ‚Ð£ãàøø We have always have consolidated resolutions since the > creation of SC35 in 1999 (SC35 was created by JTC1 at its Rio de > Janeiro Plenary in January 1999, I was there -- out of JTC1/WG5, > itself out of JTC1/SC18/WG9). This strenghtened SC35 all the time, > making it a coherent body. When the secretary was not there, I was > acting as resolution secretary (no problem in my doing so again, > and many other people could also do so -- in any way I can still > volunteer if this is a problem). > > ƒâÐ£àøø> About future meetings, I think that we must have strong > hints (at least a firm date and a firm continent, ideally a firm > country) for 18 months in advance (funds planning is typically done > -- depending on countries -- on a civil year, from January to > December or from another month up to the next eleven months over > spanning civil years [in Canada as a case in point from April to > March of the next civil year). In absence of those strong hints, > funds have more chances not to be sufficiently available, which is > also very much detrimental to sustainable attendance. > >> ‚Ð£ãàøø I'm pretty sure that other convenors will agree with me. > If not, I'm ready to modestly say I have a dissident view and would > then accept the views of the majority. > > ƒâÐ£àøø> Alain > >> ‚õõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõðÐ£ãàøø Le 2014-01-23 à > 06:13, Khalid CHOUKRI a écrit : > > ƒâÐ > > ƒâ†'ÆàÐ£ãàøø > >> ‚2w&VVBB÷W"66¶@oon meeting there will be no "Plenary" sessions > per see in Barcelona, >ƒãâÐ øø>> I hope to join the group and introduce the activities of >the week but this could be an informal introduction on Monday >morning , Philippe is looking at that and this should not last more than 30mn; > > ƒâÐ£àøø> The same decision impacts the closing session (there > will be no closing meeting and hence no resolution session), I hope > to be able to attend a general gathering (may be on Thursday) to > wrap up and see how we move forward with respect to the July meeting. > > ƒâÐ£à>>ˆ™YØ\™[™È[Ý\ˆ][HÛˆ ]\™HYY][™ÜÈHÝYÙÙ\ÝÈleave this out > unless you would like to get the participants desiderata (and > hopefully Philippe will circulate the invitation from our Chinese > partners before Barcelona) > >> ‚Ð£ãàøø thanks again and best wishes to all for a successful > meeting in Barcelona > > ƒâÐ£àøø> Khalid > > ƒâÐ£àøø> P.S. Philippe: could you please update the SC35 action > list, in particular with the information you got from Spain, thanks > >> ‚Ð£ãàøø > >> ‚Æà LaBontï°¯HÜ›ÝKÛˆŒ‹ÌKÌŒMNŒŽNƒB ƒãàø M•" …ÑÐached file. > Please indicate omissions, errors, if any, and suggest other areas > of concerns. > >> ‚Ð£ãàøø Any other remark also welcome. > >> ‚Ð£ãàøø Alain LaBonté, Convenor, JTC1/SC35/WQG1 > > ƒâ\:&V0Ð øø>> >€>> --- >ƒãâ6R6÷W'&W":ÆV7G&öæ—VRæR6öçFVçBV7Pn virus ou logiciel >malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. >ƒãâ‡GG¢ò÷wwræf7Bæ6öÒ >ƒãâÐ øø>> -- > > ƒâÐ£àøø> Khalid Choukri > >>>>S HÙ[™\˜[ÙXÜ™]\žH ˆSHÑSÂ ƒãUµ…¥°è > ¡½Ôkri@elda.org< mailto:choukri@elda.org>; >ƒãâvV#¢wwràelra.info < >http://www.elra.infoÝÝË™[K›Ü™È‹ËÝÀww.elda.org/> > >> ‚FV¢³32C223232Òf‚â³3243 13 33 30 >ƒãâÐ øø>> *************************************************** >ƒãâ¢¢æfòöâÅ$T3¢wwræÇ&Pc-conf.org < http://www.lrec-conf.org> > > ƒâ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ ****************************************** >ƒãâÐ øø>> >ƒãâÐ øø>> >ƒãâÐ øø>> ________________________________ > > ƒâ²‡GG¢ò÷7FF2æf7Bæ6öÒöVÖÇ2övast-mail-stamp.png] < > http://www.avast.com/Bƒãàøø€4(>> ˆÙHÛÝ\œšY\ˆ0ê[XÝ›Ûš\]YH™HÛÛ Y[ > ]XÝ[ˆš\ \ÈÀu logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus > avast!< http://www.avast.com/\ÝXÝ]™KƒBƒãàø€4(ø>> -- > >> ˆBƒãàø -¡…±¥ >¡½ÕÉ¤€4(ø>>S HÙ[™\˜[Àecretary & ELDA CEO > > ‚VÖâ6†÷V·&"VÆFæ÷&s²Ð£à>>ÙXŽˆÝÝË™[˜Kš[™›ÈÝÝË™[K›Ü™ÈBƒãàø > Q•°¸€¬ÌÌ€ Ä€ÐÌ 13 33 33 - Fax. > +33 1 43 13 33 30 > > ‚Ð£ãàøø€¨¨¨¨¨¨********************************************* >ƒâ¢¢ nfo on LREC: www.lrec-conf.org > >> ˆ >ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ€********************************** > >> >ˆB ‚Ð£ãâCe courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel >malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. >ˆB >‚Ð£ãâõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõð___________________________________________________________________________________________ > > >> >ˆÙHY\ÜØYÙH] ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > >\È@tre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous > avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >ˆH Ù^Y]]\ˆ]H] Z\™HZ[œÚH]YH\ÈYXÙ\È€ointes. Les messages >electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, > deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > >> > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > privileged information that may be protected by law; > >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >ˆYˆ[ÝH]™H™XÙZ]™Y\È[XZ[[€ error, please notify the sender and delete >this message and its attachments. > >\È[XZ[ÈX^H™H[\™YÜ˜[™Ù@ is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > >[šÈ[ÝKƒB ˆB‚Ð£âÐ£âÒÒÐ €4(> Yoshikazu SEKI, Ph.D. > > Senior Research Scientist > > Physical Fitness Technology Group*, > > Human Technology Research Institute, > > National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST). > >ˆÜ›Ý\Ú[™ÙY€une 1, 2013. >B ˆKLKLHYØ\ÚKÝZÝX˜KX˜\˜ZÚHÌ >KN566 JAPAN. > > Phone: +81-29-861-6716, > > Fax: +81-29-861-6774 *Fax number also changed. > > E-mail: yoshikazu-seki@aist.go.jp > > Web : > http://staff.aist.go.jp/yoshikazu-seki/ > >B€ > > > >--- >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel >malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. >http://www.avast.com > > > >-- > >Khalid Choukri >ELRA General secretary & ELDA CEO >email: choukri@elda.org; >Web: www.elra.info www.elda.org >Tel. +33 1 43 13 33 33 - Fax. >+33 1 43 13 33 30 > >*************************************************** >** Info on LREC: www.lrec-conf.org >**************************************************** > > > > >"ATTENTION. > >Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à >l'attention exclusive de leur destinataire (aux adresses spécifiques >auxquelles il a été adressé). Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de >ce message, vous devez immédiatement en avertir l'expéditeur et >supprimer ce message et les pièces jointes de votre système. > >This message and any attachments are confidential and intended to be >received only by the addressee. If you are not the intended >recipient, please notify immediately the sender by reply and delete >the message and any attachments from your system. >" >jtc1sc35n1250_Fukuoka2008_DraftResolutions2.doc --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com --=====================_1075480923==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Philippe,

good informative contribution.

I was never aware of those default ballots held for GOM resolutions, it means that at least in Canada, our Standards Council (SCC/CCN) was not even posting them for vote to our Canadian forum and our vote was the approval by default (that's the way default ballots work, right?). I think I would be aware if I had seen them because I'm responsible for Canadian SC35 ballot responses since the founding of the SC. Fine to me if it is the price to pay.

Question: can we then hold 2-week maximum letter ballots for resolutions ?

So far GOM' recommendations were also always identified as resolutions without protest (they were not identified as mere WG recommendations because they were the fact of operational plenaries indeed) balloted by the same NBs present at Plenaries.

I continue to believe that such GOMs are better than dispersed WG recommendations not gathered in a focused place as we always did.

SC2/WG2 votes "resolutions" at its meetings. They are never default-letter-balloted later on to my knowledge. They are executory and executed. Since I participate in this WG (decades ago), there has never been a complaint about this, so I guess that is why it is working. I like such an efficient way of doing. GOMs are adapted to SC35 to do this.

Alain
___________________________________________
Le 2014-01-28 à 16:49, magnabosco philippe a écrit :

Dear all

Thank you for your contributions and positions on this matter. I should like to underline a few points:

·         Coordination between working groups of SC 35 is an objective that has always been pursued by the SC 35 management and secretariat.

·         In the past, when General operational meetings were held under the leadership of the SC 35 Chair but without secretariat support, proposed resolutions were in fact formally drafts that were not executory immediately but were submitted to a yes-by-default ballot of P-Members. (see attached example from 2008 and its Procedure reminder language on page 2)

o   Many of the SC 35 resolutions are taken to acknowledge progression of work and do not need to be resolutions to be acted upon.

o   Some resolutions of SC 35 are formal requirements as per directives, they need to be approved by members at the time of GOMs and will need to be approved in the present situation as well before they become executory. This does not mean that their execution cannot be prepared by whomever is the addressee of the resolution if the outcome of the vote is 99% secure, as is so often the case.

·         Looking at SC 35 resolutions of the past 2 meetings, I do see a handful of resolutions that really cut across SC 35 WGs and impact them all at once. Resolutions on target dates, drafting policy come to mind. A much larger number of resolutions are proposed by single working groups, or by an association of WGs under the leadership of one WG (e.g. WG 5 for Voice commands, WG 1 for Gesture-based interfaces). Many of these (e.g. Mr X is asked to prepare a contribution on Z) need not be SC resolutions and need no SC-level coordination.

·         I will be happy to propose a common basis reg. target dates or other cross-cutting issues of SC 35 for WGs to refer to in Barcelona and use in their proposed resolutions.

·         ISO/IEC Directives and JTC 1 Supplement do not recognize WG “resolutions”. WGs can make recommendations that their own WG experts, WG convenor or WG secretariat support (if any) acts upon as they please, within their range of competence as WGs. Calling those resolutions is a facility of language that is sometimes misleading. “Resolutions” are decisions by a body that has national representations, with national votes cast by nominated Heads of delegation: these bodies are typically TCs, SCs (and of course TMB). I am sure SC 2 makes it a point to make sure that decisions that are SC remit are taken at SC llevel, and do not stay mere WG “resolutions”. I have elsewhere seen cases where the distinction was not clear enough and resolutions could therefore have been challenged.
As said above, some of the SC 35 resolutions could easily remain WG recommendations or decisions and be just as valid if they were not adopted as SC 35 resolutions.

Best regards,

Philippe MAGNABOSCO

Secrétaire/Secretary

                CEN/WS ICT Skills

                ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 35

                ISO TC 46/WG 2

AFNOR Normalisation - DTEC

11 rue Francis de Pressensé

93571 La Plaine-Saint Denis

+33 (0)1 41 62 85 02

De : owner-sc35wg4@open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc35wg4@open-std.org] De la part de Khalid CHOUKRI
Envoyé : mardi 28 janvier 2014 14:33
À : ALB; yoshikazu-seki@aist.go.jp; jeeink@gmail.com; monique.mai@orange.com; keld@keldix.com; carter@cs.usask.ca; thibault.grouas@culture.gouv.fr
Cc : sc35wg1@open-std.org; magnabosco philippe; mouradi amelle; sc35wg2@open-std.org; sc35wg4@open-std.org; sc35wg6@open-std.org; sc35wg8@open-std.org
Objet : (SC35WG4.82) (SC35WG2.17) JTC1/SC35 meeting - Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014

Hi Alain

ALB wrote, On 27/01/2014 21:03:

   The only misunderstanding, Khalid, is about the resolution meeting that has been going on smoothly in the past years in absence of the secretary for interim meetings (non-Plenary with an upper-case P). AFNOR had come with a concept, the GOM (General Orientation meeting, a small plenary, in fact a resolution meeting) which was (and should continue to be according to the reactions seen) a resolution meeting after WG meetings. The resolutions were then executable immediately without the need for a letter ballot (which would be an extra administrative burden, as P- countries have quorum to decide directcly at the meeting).

I fully understand the position. The GOM as described herein and the plans to have a resolution meeting (with adoptions voted on site) requires the participation of all P-members. In my views the Intermediate meeting I introduced was not to require the presence of national representatives but only experts ;

   The only case where I have seen a resolution being sent for letter ballot after a meeting is recent, when the resolution had not been noted in official resolutions of a meeting and adoption then remaining uncertain. If this would becore a custom, that would be is an uncessary delay, an extra element thant would make sure things will not be done on time. But in a GOM, resolutions were always adopted by HoDs of represented countries. There is no reason to fix what is not broken, and thisGOM process has always been working very well so far, it is very far to be broken. On the contrary, if we modify this process, other things will be more broken than ever, imho.

The whole discussion we had since last meeting in Busan was to bring the SC35 activities to a ONE annual (and Plenary) meeting like many other SCs and technical work being done via email/telco, at conferences, etc.. and this is a challenge that all agreed to pursue. We did not want to fix something (though I am still annoyed by the way we manage our daily activities) but rather move to a new way of doing things.

   What is broken is that many times resolutions are not executed promptly, without me wanting here to discuss about responsibilities (which are not always the fact of one person). Our goal should be that resolutions be executed so that the work be done and publications achieved. This process is broken, still, and should be fixed as smoothly as possible.

We have now agreed with AFNOR (SC35 secretariat) to monitor the management of our actions (and resolutions) more carefully. Philippe will send us the URL of a web page where he puts our action list and the corresponding execution (Philippe: could you please recirculate this again)

   GOMS are a winning process and should continue for interim meetings. This is what I had understood in Saskatoon, and it seems it was understood by others too (so far unanimously), according to the reactions seen of the WG1 forum.

Well I am surprised to see that (and hope this is only WG1!) , let us discuss it again and see how to move forward.

Best regards
Khalid

Alain
______________________________________
Le 2014-01-26 à 08:22, Khalid Choukri a écrit :

Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Dear colleagues

Let me first express some astonishment regarding the reactions I have read since Alain's email about the plenary versus GOM meetings, and our SC35 plans.

I think we devote time to discuss this issue in Saskatoon and reviewed all arguments pros and cons and the main conclusion was that we head to an annual meeting with a plenary, a WG meetings, and a resolution session; all running over 4 to 5 days.

The intermediate meeting (the one in February this year) would be turned into a meeting of experts as required by the corresponding WG agenda (which means some WGs would skip that meeting if no item requires a face to face meeting).

So again, the proposed modus operandi as We discussed it in Saskatoon would be:

1/ (As long as necessary) a winter/spring technical meeting to address and make progress on technical matters that may (or not) lead to resolutions. This could be an opportunity to finalize WG reports that require face to face meeting of all experts.

2/ An annual meeting with a plenary session to review the work progress, including the secretariat work and WG resolutions

3/ if a decision/action is taken during the technical meeting, the secretariat will turn this into a resolution and bring it to adoption (electronic vote) and ensure its execution,

We also discussed the scheduling of our meetings and many requirements and desiderata were expressed: I would like to ensure participation of all delegates (which excludes the major holiday seasons e.g. Christmas, Chinese new year, etc.) and necessitates a consensus for two-three years in advance.

I have asked Philippe to circulate the details of the Barcelona meeting, I hope we will get it tomorrow (Monday). I understand that most of us are upset because of the missing agenda and plans 10 days before the meeting. I hope that you made your arrangements for your flights and will share with you informations on accommodations this week.

Best regards
Khalid

> Le 26 janv. 2014 à 11:13, Yoshikazu SEKI <yoshikazu-seki@aist.go.jp> a écrit :
>
> Dear All,
B ˆH[ÛÈÝ\Ü€t Alain's position.
>
> We need to gather conclusions of WGs' meetings somehow, and also need to have opportunity to know WGs' activities. We also need to decide consolidated next actions after the meeting.
>
˜\ÙYÛˆÓÀM model, we can have Resolutions even in the meeting where the secretary is absent.
>
™\Ý™YØ\™ËB ˆB‚ðshikazu Seki
B ˆB ˆŒMÌKÌ ˆMÎ Nxà O[Ûš\]YK›XZPÀrange.com> <monique.mai@orange.com> ã ®ãƒ¡ãƒ¼ãƒ«ï¼š
B€>> Dear all,
ˆB ‚f—'7BöbÆÂÂ'v÷VÆBÆ¶RFòv—6‚you a happy new year 2014 (sorry for sending this message late (my dad pass away at the end of 2013 and I was pretty busy in the begin of the new year.)
>B ˆÙ[ÙHneed a "strong cooperation between WG's in SC35" and I fully understand, support Allan's position.
ˆB ‚öb6ðurse, the model adapted during the last session can save of course expenses. Nethertheless, it really seems to me that the needs of a global meeting for having an overview of the activities of the different subgroup and the opportunity to get an exchange in face to face could be e an opportunity to wrap up the seminar, stimulate by this method the cooperation and a team spirit within the SC35. The collective creativity can emerge and I am sure it could be finally an opportunity to stimulate all the energies in favour our trementous goal "the accessibility".
>B€>> If it is necessary, I propose to help Allan or to act for writting the resolutions if Philippe is not here (of course with his support).
>B ˆ]YHÛ›ÝÈYˆ\Èroposal can help ; my current vision is that a tremendous job was done and the cohesion of the SC35 is essential.
ˆB ‚f÷"÷W"æf÷&ÖFöâÂFVæ—26Œ:¦æRæB×—6VÆbttend the Barcelone meeting. We really think that we have to take in account the Allan, Keld, Jim comments.
ˆ@
>™\Ý™YØ\™ËB ‚Ð£ãâÖöæ—VPÐ£ãâÐ ø€4(ø
>>
>
>B ˆBƒâÐ£Q"€è ½Ý¹•ÈµÍŒÌÕÝœÅ½U¸µÍÑ ¹½Éœ mµ„ilto:owner-sc35wg1@open-s td.org] De la part de ALB
>[€voyé : samedi 25 janvier 2014 14:41
ˆ0àˆÙ[Ù[^.com; Jee-In Kim
>> Cc : Carter, James; Khalid CHOUKRI; sc35wg1@open-std.org; philippe.magnabosco@afnor.org; amelle.mouradi@afnor.org
>Øš™]ˆ
ÐÌÍUÑÌK NJH'Nˆ˜Y Agenda - JTC1/SC35/WG1 meeting - Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014
>B ˆHŒMLKL H0èŒMËÙ[Ù[^˜Àom écrit:
>>X\ˆ[BƒãâÐ øø $ …±Í¼ ÍÕA½ÉÐ ±…¥¸œs propositions.
ˆBƒãâ'æ÷FRF†BF†Rtw2vÆÂ†fP resolutions, and that these resolutions should
>ˆ™HÀarried out bu the SC without unnessecary delay, eg. confirmed via a
>>ÐÈ]\ˆ˜[Ý\ÈÙH\ÙHÈÈÚ[ˆÙ@ run GOMs.
>>
ˆÐ[Z[—H[ˆ˜XÝY \ˆ[ÓÓ\Ë™\Àolutions were executed, we have not done letter ballots to vote on these resolutions later on.
>B ˆ ]Ú[ˆa ballot was called by a resolution for a NP, CD, DIS, PDTR, etc,, this ballot was done without extra formality . This is the typical situation for most resolutions.
ˆ@
>\È\ÈH[ÜÝY™šXÚY[ Ø^HÈ›ØÙYY[Z›B ˆ
ˆ[Z[ƒB ˆBƒãâ&W2&Vv&G0Ð£àø -•± 4(>>
‚öà Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:25:28PM +0900, Jee-In Kim wrote:
‚FV"ÆÂ£ãàø€4(ø>> I also support Alain's position and interpretation.
‚Ð£ãàø ]" É•…±±ä ¹•• „ ÍÐrong cooperation between WG's in SC35.
> ˆ›Üˆ^[\K we received a lot of valuable comments from experts in all WG's in SC35 to the 30113 series of gesture interfaces. That seems to me one of the great advantages of the GOM model. I expect that we need more cooperation in the future.
>>ˆB ƒãâÇ6òÂvR6â&RfW''&öGV7F—fRv—F‚F€e GOM model while relieving burdens and expenses of the secretariat. This seems a very practical solution to me.
>>ˆB ƒãâ&W7B£àøø )•"µ%¸ -¥´€¡¥A… ¤4(ø>>
‚#14. 1. 24. Ïóòs£b$6'FW"Â¦ÖW2"Æ6'FW$72çW66²æ0a> ??ÏàÐ£ãàø€4(ø>>H™[Y]™H]\™H\™H˜\š[Ý\À interpretations of what we discussed. Alain definitely discussed the GOM model as a means of meeting without plenary in the Saskatoon discussions. Given the context of history within SC35, many participants have a valid expectation that that was what was agreed to.
> ‚Ð£ãàøø I•œards, Jim
ƒâg&öÓ¢¶†ÆB4„õTµ$'¶6†÷V·&"VÆFæ÷&uÐÐ
> ‚6VçC¢#B¦çV''#B3£3PÐ£ãàøø Q¼è
…ÉÑ•È° )…´es; ALB; sc35wg1@open-std.org
> ‚63¢†Æ—RæÖvæ&ðsco@afnor.org; amelle.mouradi@afnor.org
ƒâ7V&¦V7C¢e: (SC35WG1.492) Draft Agenda - JTC1/SC35/WG1 meeting - Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014
>> ˆBƒãàø !¤ )¥´4
> ‚Ð£ãàøø Q¡¥Ì ¥Ì Ý¡…Ð Ý" '¥Í ÕÍÍ• …±° Ñ½ •Ñ¡•È ‰½Ðh in Busan and Saskatoon and, after the discussions, I announced that we are heading towards an annual plenary meeting with, as many as required, technical meetings.
€> The agreement was that we have our plenaries in the summer (end of June, early July) and a technical one in February this time.
ƒâÐ£àøø Philippe: Could you please circulate the info on the February meeting
ƒâÐ£à>>B ƒãâ&W7B&Vv&G2FòÆÂ£àøø Khalid
>> ˆB€>>ˆØ\ \‹˜[Y\ÈÜ›ÝKÛˆ ÌKÌŒM ÎƒB ƒãd€strongly agree with Alain that the GOM model that we have historically used works well to promote the well being and success of SC35 and that to do less would be to invite major problems in the working and success of SC35.
€>>
ƒãâ&Vv&G2Â¦ÐÐ øø>> ________________________________
> ƒâg&öÓ¢Ä"¶Æ&öävÖ¦6öÕÐÐ øø>> Sent: 23 January 2014 08:25
ƒãâFó¢¶†ÆB4„õTµ$"² 633Pwg1@open-std.org
>> ‚63¢†Æ—RæÖvæ&÷66ôfæ÷"æ÷ g; amelle.mouradi@afnor.org; Carter, James
ƒãâ7V&¦V0t: Re: (SC35WG1.492) Draft Agenda - JTC1/SC35/WG1 meeting - Barcelona, week of 10 February 2014
> ƒâÐ£àøø> Khalid,
ƒãâÐ øø>> OK, I updated the timeframe of the agenda (see attached file, 2nd draft agenda).
> ƒâÐ
> ƒâ†÷vWfW"'F†æ²F†BF†W&R6†÷VÆB&RÒÒ2vR†`e always done -- a P plenary session at the end to have consolidated resolutions, not dispersed resolutions in each WG (AFNOR used to call such a meeting a GOM [General Orientation Meeting, a term invented by them for meetings where the secretariat was absent, a situation with which we got used to and to which we adapted as it seemed the best solution in this case] when it was not a formal Plenary). Otherwise I strongly fear that SC35 will be weakened, disorganized, and incoherent between formal plenaries (we need to be sure that decisions will be cared about and focused in a central point). The sentiment of "belonging" will also vanish, and groups will feel autonomous (let's then form a different SC !) or not cared about (one situation or the other, not much in between). The net result, imho, will be that interest in attendance could go down. That is my experience of JTC1      meetings since more than a quarter century.
>> ‚Ð£ãàøø We have always have consolidated resolutions since the creation of SC35 in 1999 (SC35 was created by JTC1 at its Rio de Janeiro Plenary in January 1999, I was there -- out of JTC1/WG5, itself out of JTC1/SC18/WG9). This strenghtened SC35 all the time, making it a coherent body. When the secretary was not there, I was acting as resolution secretary (no problem in my doing so again, and many other people could also do so -- in any way I can still volunteer if this is a problem).
> ƒâÐ£àøø> About future meetings, I think that we must have strong hints (at least a firm date and a firm continent, ideally a firm country) for 18 months in advance (funds planning is typically done -- depending on countries -- on a civil year, from January to December or from another month up to the next eleven months over spanning civil years [in Canada as a case in point from April to March of the next civil year). In absence of those strong hints, funds have more chances not to be sufficiently available, which is also very much detrimental to sustainable attendance.
>> ‚Ð£ãàøø I'm pretty sure that other convenors will agree with me. If not, I'm ready to modestly say I have a dissident view and would then accept the views of the majority.
> ƒâÐ£àøø> Alain
>> ‚õõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõðÐ£ãàøø Le 2014-01-23 à 06:13, Khalid CHOUKRI a écrit :
> ƒâÐ
> ƒâ†'ÆàÐ£ãàøø
>> ‚2w&VVBB÷W"66¶@oon meeting there will be no "Plenary" sessions per see in Barcelona,
ƒãâÐ øø>> I hope to join the group and introduce the activities of the week but this could be an informal introduction on Monday morning , Philippe is looking at that and this should not last more than 30mn;
> ƒâÐ£àøø> The same decision impacts the closing session (there will be no closing meeting and hence no resolution session), I hope to be able to attend a general gathering (may be on Thursday) to wrap up and see how we move forward with respect to the July meeting.
> ƒâÐ£à>>ˆ™YØ\™[™È[Ý\ˆ][HÛˆ ]\™HYY][™ÜÈHÝYÙÙ\ÝÈleave this out unless you would like to get the participants desiderata (and hopefully Philippe will circulate the invitation from our Chinese partners before Barcelona)
>> ‚Ð£ãàøø thanks again and best wishes to all for a successful meeting in Barcelona
> ƒâÐ£àøø> Khalid
> ƒâÐ£àøø> P.S. Philippe: could you please update the SC35 action list, in particular with the information you got from Spain, thanks
>> ‚Ð£ãàøø
>> ‚Æà LaBontï°¯HÜ›ÝKÛˆŒ‹ÌKÌŒMNŒŽNƒB ƒãàø M•" …ÑÐached file. Please indicate omissions, errors, if any, and suggest other areas of concerns.
>> ‚Ð£ãàøø Any other remark also welcome.
>> ‚Ð£ãàøø Alain LaBonté, Convenor, JTC1/SC35/WQG1
> ƒâ\:&V0Ð øø>>
€>> ---
ƒãâ6R6÷W'&W":ÆV7G&öæ—VRæR6öçFVçBV7Pn virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
ƒãâ‡GG¢ò÷wwræf7Bæ6öÒ
ƒãâÐ øø>> --
> ƒâÐ£àøø> Khalid Choukri
>>>>S HÙ[™\˜[ÙXÜ™]\žH   ˆSHÑSÂ ƒãUµ…¥°è ¡½Ôkri@elda.org< mailto:choukri@elda.org>;
ƒãâvV#¢wwràelra.info < http://www.elra.infoÝÝË™[K›Ü™È‹ËÝÀww.elda.org/>
>> ‚FV¢³32C223232Òf‚â³3243 13 33 30
ƒãâÐ øø>> ***************************************************
ƒãâ¢¢æfòöâÅ$T3¢wwræÇ&Pc-conf.org < http://www.lrec-conf.org>
> ƒâ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ ******************************************
ƒãâÐ øø>>
ƒãâÐ øø>>
ƒãâÐ øø>> ________________________________
> ƒâ²‡GG¢ò÷7FF2æf7Bæ6öÒöVÖÇ2övast-mail-stamp.png] < http://www.avast.com/Bƒãàøø€4(>> ˆÙHÛÝ\œšY\ˆ0ê[XÝ›Ûš\]YH™HÛÛ Y[ ]XÝ[ˆš\ \ÈÀu logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!< http://www.avast.com/\ÝXÝ]™KƒBƒãàø€4(ø>> --
>> ˆBƒãàø -¡…±¥
¡½ÕÉ¤€4(ø>>S HÙ[™\˜[Àecretary & ELDA CEO
> ‚VÖâ6†÷V·&"VÆFæ÷&s²Ð£à>>ÙXŽˆÝÝË™[˜Kš[™›ÈÝÝË™[K›Ü™ÈBƒãàø Q•°¸€¬ÌÌ€ Ä€ÐÌ 13 33 33 - Fax. +33 1 43 13 33 30
> ‚Ð£ãàøø€¨¨¨¨¨¨*********************************************
ƒâ¢¢ nfo on LREC: www.lrec-conf.org
>> ˆ
ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ€**********************************
>>
ˆB ‚Ð£ãâCe courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
ˆB ‚Ð£ãâõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõð___________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
ˆÙHY\ÜØYÙH] ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>\È@tre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
ˆH      Ù^Y]]\ˆ]H] Z\™HZ[œÚH]YH\ÈYXÙ\È€ointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
ˆYˆ[ÝH]™H™XÙZ]™Y\È[XZ[[€ error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>\È[XZ[ÈX^H™H[\™YÜ˜[™Ù@ is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>[šÈ[ÝKƒB ˆB‚Ð£âÐ£âÒÒÐ €4(> Yoshikazu SEKI, Ph.D.
> Senior Research Scientist
> Physical Fitness Technology Group*,
> Human Technology Research Institute,
> National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST).

ˆÜ›Ý\Ú[™ÙY€une 1, 2013.
B ˆKLKLHYØ\ÚKÝZÝX˜KX˜\˜ZÚHÌ
KN566 JAPAN.
> Phone: +81-29-861-6716,
> Fax: +81-29-861-6774 *Fax number also changed.
> E-mail: yoshikazu-seki@aist.go.jp
> Web : http://staff.aist.go.jp/yoshikazu-seki/
B€

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com

--

Khalid Choukri
ELRA General secretary & ELDA CEO
email: choukri@elda.org;
Web: www.elra.info www.elda.org
Tel. +33 1 43 13 33 33 - Fax. +33 1 43 13 33 30

***************************************************
** Info on LREC: www.lrec-conf.org
****************************************************
"ATTENTION.

Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à
l'attention exclusive de leur destinataire (aux adresses spécifiques
auxquelles il a été adressé). Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce
message, vous devez immédiatement en avertir l'expéditeur et supprimer ce
message et les pièces jointes de votre système. 

This message and any attachments are confidential and intended to be
received only by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify immediately the sender by reply and delete the message and
any attachments from your system.
"
jtc1sc35n1250_Fukuoka2008_DraftResolutions2.doc

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

--=====================_1075480923==.ALT--