From alb@sct.gouv.qc.ca Wed Jul 29 16:34:47 1998 Received: from merisier.qc.ca (merisier.internet.gouv.qc.ca [192.197.162.19]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03161 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:34:40 +0200 Received: from [192.197.162.247] by merisier.qc.ca (NTMail 3.03.0017/26.aaap) with ESMTP id ma180348 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:35:25 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980729103101.01bbd8b4@entree.ct.gouv.qc.ca> X-Sender: alabonte@entree.ct.gouv.qc.ca Disposition-Notification-To: X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) [F] Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:31:01 -0400 To: Matthew Deane From: Alain LaBonté  Subject: RE: FW: Explanatory Report 9995-3/FDAM 1 Cc: "'atlab@iso.ch'" , sc18wg9@dkuug.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_901737061==_" --=====================_901737061==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Matthew, I'm back from vacation this morning and I filled what I could in the Explanatory report. As the situation of ex-SC18/WG9, which became JTC1/WG5 and which is planned to become SC35, is very special (we didn't have a secretary in the meanwhile), I guess that the JTC1 secretariat needs to endorse the form which I filled (it needs a secretary's signature). As I am the editor of the concerned standard, I feel I would be in a position of judge and party to sign this very simple form. Could you try to assign a number and have the JTC1 secretary to sign it please? The info is there (it only misses a JTC1 document number and a signature, imho -- this should be checked but it should be simple). I also send a copy in the meanwhile (not to create extra delays) to the central secretariat. Please tell me if this is OK. With my best regards. Alain LaBonté Québec The filled form is attached in HTML format. cc atlab@iso.ch, "SC18/WG9" list ______________________________________ >From: Matthew Deane >To: "'Alain LaBonté '" >Cc: "'atlab@iso.ch'" >Subject: RE: FW: Explanatory Report 9995-3/FDAM 1 >Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:12:56 -0400 > >Dear Alain, > >I have attached the explanatory report form in HTML format. It is also >available under "Templates" on the JTC 1 website. One of these needs to >be submitted with each document that is going to ISO for publication. > >Let me know if you have any further questions. > >Thanks, > >Matt > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alain LaBonté  [SMTP:alb@sct.gouv.qc.ca] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 5:17 PM >> To: Matthew Deane >> Cc: 'atlab@iso.ch' >> Subject: Re: FW: Explanatory Report 9995-3/FDAM 1 >> >> A 14:13 98-07-21 -0400, Matthew Deane a écrit : >> >Dear Mr. LaBonte, >> > >> >Can you please provide this information to the individual at ISO >> listed >> >below. >> > >> >Thanks, >> >> [Alain] : >> Before I begin, what is an explanatory report? >> >> Disposition of comment on the FPDAM? >> >> Alain >> On vacation until the 28th included >> >> ________ >> >Matthew >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Atlab, Abdelali [SMTP:atlab@iso.ch] >> >> Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 4:18 AM >> >> To: Matthew Deane >> >> Subject: Explanatory Report 9995-3/FDAM 1 >> >> >> >> Dear Mr. Deane, >> >> >> >> Can you please send us the Explanatory Report for 9995-3/FDAM 1. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Atlab --=====================_901737061==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="EX-RPT.HTM"

EXPLANATORY REPORT

ISO/IEC

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC YY N XXXX

  

Will supersede: SC YY N XXXX

Secretariat: USA

This form should be sent to ITTF, together with the committee draft, by the secretariat of the joint technical committee or sub-committee concerned.

The accompanying document is submitted for circulation to member body vote as a DIS, following consensus of the P-members of the committee obtained on:

1998-05-15

_X_ at the 1998-05-15 Reykjavík meeting of ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG5
(See resolution nmber 13 in document ISO/IEC JTC1/ WG 5 N0039R1)

___ by postal ballot initiated on: CCY-MM-DD

P-members in favour: 12 (13 after reversal of one vote to YES)

P-members voting against: 2 (1 after reversal of one vote to YES)

P-members abstaining: 1

P-members who did not vote:

Remark by the signee: Since JTC1/WG5 had lost its SC18 secretariat and had become temporarily a WG of JTC1 before SC35 was established by the last JTC1 Plenary, the number of P-members not having voted is considered problematic. Who were the P-members of JTC1/WG5 at time of voting? JTC1 P-members? Or ex-SC18 P-members?

Project: JTC 1.18.09.03

I hereby confirm that this draft meets the requirements of part 3 of the IEC/ISO Directives

Date: 1998-07-29

Name and signature of acting secretary for this ad hoc project:
--=====================_901737061==_--