Subject: SC22 N2530 - JTC 1 Vote Summary of Sun Microsystems Application for PAS Recognition

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:16:38 -0400 (EDT)

________________ beginning of title page _______________________________
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A.  (ANSI)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
N2530

July 1997

TITLE:
JTC 1 Summary of Voting on Application from Sun Microsystems, Inc. for
Recognition as a Submitter of Publicly Available Specifications for Sun's
Java Technologies

SOURCE:
Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

WORK ITEM:
N/A

STATUS:
N/A

CROSS REFERENCE:
N/A

DOCUMENT TYPE:
Summary of Voting

ACTION:
To SC22 Member Bodies for information.

Address reply to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
William C. Rinehuls
8457 Rushing Creek Court
Springfield, VA 22153 USA
Tel:  +1 (703) 912-9680
Fax:  +1 (703) 912-2973
email:  [email-masked]

_______________end of title page; beginning of document _______________

 ISO/IEC JTC 1
 Information Technology

 ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 4811

 DATE: 1997.07.17

 REPLACES

 DOC TYPE:
 Summary of Voting/Table of Replies

 TITLE:
 Summary of Voting on Document JTC 1 N 4615, Application from Sun
 Microsystems, Inc. for Recognition as a Submitter of Publicly
 Available Specifications for Sun's Java Technologies

 SOURCE:
 JTC 1 Secretariat

 PROJECT: 

 STATUS:
 The results of this ballot and the accompanying comments are
 forwarded to JTC 1 National Bodies for information.

 The results of this ballot and the accompanying comments are
 forwarded to the submitter, Sun Microsystems, for review and
 attempted resolution of the comments. Sun Microsystems is requested
 to review the comments and to prepare a written response to the
 comments. Sun's response is to be submitted to the JTC 1 Secretariat
 no later than 1997-09-17.

 Upon receipt of Sun's response, the document will be forwarded to JTC
 1 National Bodies for consideration. The JTC 1 National Bodies will
 have 45 days to review the response and to advise the JTC 1
 Secretariat if, as a result of Sun's response, their "yes" vote
 remains "yes"; their "no" vote remains "no" or their "no" vote is now
 "yes".

 ACTION ID:

 ACT DUE DATE: 1997.09.17

 DISTRIBUTION: P and L Members

 MEDIUM: D

 DISKETTE NO.: 142

 NO. OF PAGES: 18

 Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1, American National Standards Institute, 11
 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036; Telephone: 1 212 642 4932;
 Facsimile: 1 212 398 0023; Email: [email-masked]

---------------------------------
Summary of Voting on JTC 1 N 4615

               | Approve     
               |   | Approve with comments
               |   |   | Disapprove
               |   |   |   | Abstain
 'P' Members   |   |   |   |   | Comments
 --------------|---|---|---|---|-------------------
 Australia     |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Austria       | X |   |   |   |                
 Belgium       |   | X |   |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Brazil        |   | X |   |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Canada        |   |   |   | X | SEE ATTACHED 
 China         |   |   |   |   |              
 Columbia      |   |   |   |   |                 
 Denmark       |   | X |   |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Egypt         |   |   |   |   |              
 Finland       |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 France        |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Germany       |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Hungary       |   |   |   |   |                
 Ireland       |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Italy         |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Japan         | X |   |   |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Korea, Rep.of | X |   |   |   |                
 Netherlands   |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 New Zealand   |   | X |   |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Norway        |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Romania       |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Russian Fed.  | X |   |   |   |                
 Slovenia      |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Sweden        |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 Switzerland   |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 United Kingdom|   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 USA           |   |   | X |   | SEE ATTACHED 
 --------------|---|---|---|---|-------------------

(*) See also http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/index.html

---------------------------------
Attachment 1   Australia

While Australia strongly supports the international standardization of
Java technology, we submit a vote of Disapproval with comments, as
provided below.  However, Australia would be willing to alter its vote
if it can be shown that these issues are satisfactorily addressed.

Australia requests further information from SMI on its response to the
mandatory requirements of Annex B of JTC1 N 3582 listed below.

1. Clause 3.1.1- Commitment to Working Agreements

   While SMI have agreed to work with ISO/IEC concerning working
   agreements, samples of similar agreements with other groups should
   be provided..

2. Clause 3.1.2 - Ongoing Maintenance

   SMI has stated ' committed to evolving the Java platform'....  at a
   pace consistent with market conditions' (JTC1 N 4615 Clause 3.1.2).

   This would suggest that revision would be undertaken at a time
   suitable to SMI's own market without commitment to the JTC1
   required 5 year revision cycle.

3. Clause 3.1.3 - Changes

   Any editorial changes to the specification should be performed
   consistent with JTC1 requirements 4.

4. Clause 3.1.4 - Future Plans

   Australia considers that SMI have not addressed the requirements of
   clause 3.1.4.a.  We consider that the present status has been
   addressed rather than the intentions for the future.

5. Clause 3.3 - Intellectual Property Rights

   Australia considers that the distribution rights of ISO/IEC should
   not be subject to restrictive conditions from SMI after
   transposition of the specifications to International Standards.

   Australia believes the term "Java" must be free of trade mark
   restrictions when used with any transposed Java technology
   specification.

   Australia notes that JTC1 N 3582, Clause 3.2 is not deemed
   essential as per JTC1 N 3582 Clause 2.2.  Similarly JTC1 N 3582
   Annex B Clause 4 is excluded by JTC1 N 3582 Clause 5.2 and JTC1 N
   3582 Annex B Clause 2.5.  Some information regarding these clauses
   has been received from SMI.

   Australia has excluded this material from its deliberations.

   The Australian National Body received presentations from interested
   parties during which additional documentation was tabled.
   Australia also considered the attached document (JavaSoft's Open
   Development Process) tendered by Sun Microsystems Australia.

   SECRETARIAT'S NOTE: The document, JavaSoft's Open Development
   Process, was not easily attached.  It can be found at
   http://java.sun.com/aboutJava/standardization/index.html

---------------------------------
Attachment 2   Brazil

We approve Document ISO/IEC JTC1 N 4615, Application from Sun
Microsystems, Inc. for Recognition as a Submitter of Publicly
Available Specifications for Sun's Java Technologies with the attached
comments

i) The PAS handling process should be clarified and enhanced, to
   garantee the adequate level of openness and consensus-based
   decision.  To that end, Brazil proposes that ample participation be
   granted since the initial phases of the future development of the
   applicable specification.

ii) In dealing with the present submission, Brazil would like to
   ensure that additional clarification be given by Sun with respect
   to the evolution of the proposed standard.  Brazil would support
   that responsibilities for maintenance should rest with JTC1.

iii) Brazil supports the requirement for further detailed
   explicitation by the applicant that licensing will be granted on a
   non-discriminatory basis as well as under reasonable terms and
   conditions.

iv) further clarification should be provided by the applicant with
   respect to the terms and conditions by which the implementors of
   the standard will be permitted to use the specifications.

---------------------------------
Attachment 3   Belgium

We approve document JTC1 N 4615 with its amendment, document JTC1
N4669.

---------------------------------
Attachment 4   Canada

Canada ABSTAINS, however we wish to register the following comments to
explain our position on this VERY important matter.

{explanation of our abstention: we had an equal number of votes for a
negative and positive with comments, but in most cases the reasons for
the choices were very similar}

Canada believes that the subject of JAVA standards, is too important
and timely a topic for JTC1 and for the sake of our customers to treat
lightly.  Therefore it is extremely important that we find the most
advantageous route to achieve progress on this topic, without
significant impact to the credibility of the PAS submission process.

We are also of the opinion that this request for approval as a PAS
submitter is being clouded with the issue of the acceptance of JAVA as
a JTC1 standard.  While we are aware that one must come before the
other, we are limiting our comments to the matter at hand.

Canada believes that a recognized PAS Submitter should be held to a
high standard with regard to establishment and use of OPEN and
Consensus Building Processes.  We believe that a private company can
be an appropriate submitter of PASs, provided that the appropriate
requirements and obligations are settled.  We believe that the SMI
responses contained in JTC1 N 4615 do not clearly establish that this
has, or will be done with regard to Java Technologies.  Specifically,
we are concerned with the absence of needed assurances such as, for
example, in the following areas: Section 3.1.2 Ongoing Maintenance;
Section 3.1.3 Changes; Section 3.1.4 Future Plans; Section 3.3.2
Copyrights; Section 3.3.3 Distribution Rights; Section 3.3.4 Trademark
Rights.  It is also important that all future revisions to any
approved standard be developed in JTC1 and not be the subject of a new
PAS submission.

Canada would be pleased to become a supporter of this application,
provided that the complete list of criteria as set forth in the PAS
submission process are met.

---------------------------------
Attachment 5   Denmark

Danish Comments:

It is of great importance that JTC1 takes over the product and,
especially, the maintenance of JAVA.  In SUN's application they want
to be responsible for the maintenance themselves.  Therefore, this has
to be changed so that the maintenance is passed on to JTC1.  In JTC1
the responsibility for maintenance should be supervised by one Sub
Committee.

ISO's IPR regulations must be followed.  In SUN's application it is
stated that they intend to follow the regulations.  It is not
sufficient to have a declaration of intent, SUN must commit themselves
to observe the regulations.

As a minimum the references in the JAVA documents must be changed to
references to "real" standards, where available.  Other references
should be transferred to a bibliographical/informative annex.

---------------------------------
Attachment 6   Finland

"We disapprove Document ISO/IEC JTC1 N 4615 for the following reasons:

Although we agree on the benefits of standardized Java, we also
support the U.S.  position - as we know it - in that a number of
issues that they have presented need to be resolved between SMI and
JTC1, prior to accepting this application.  We consider both the
amendment N 4649 and SMI's comments on the U.S.  JTC1 TAG vote
positive indications of their willingness to co-operate in resolving
these issues."

---------------------------------
Attachment 7   France

AFNOR considers that normalization of JAVA technology is a strong
requirement, recognized by the IT industry at large, i.e users and
producers.

Sun's submission does not satisfy the qualifying criteria defined by
the PAS process, thus AFNOR vote is negative.  AFNOR position could be
reversed if the following conditions were met:

1. Property rights

AFNOR considers as a requirement that Sun should allow the "Java" name
to be used in ISO/IEC standards resulting from Sun's PAS submissions,
and in standards derived from these submissions (e.g., extensions).  A
product implementing the ISO/IEC standards (clean-room implementation)
must be able to be declared Java-conformant without any other
preconditions than the ones satisfying the ISO/IEC policy on
licensing.  The use of "Java" name should also be permissible in
certification test suites approved by ISO/IEC.  Products passing such
ISO/IEC approved test suites should have the right to qualify
themselves as "Java compliant".

2. Maintenance and evolution of the specification:

AFNOR considers essential that maintenance and evolution of the Java
standards are totally under the control of JTC1.  It implies that:

 · When the first set of Java specifications are submitted for
   standardization, the necessary clarifications, interpretations and
   minor changes that result from the submission and voting process
   are performed within JTC1 in an open and consensus-based fashion.

 · For those Java specifications that have reached the ISO/IEC
   standard status, both the maintenance process (resulting from
   Defect Reports) and the evolution of standards (resulting from
   proposed enhancements) take place within JTC1 in an open and
   consensus-based fashion.

 · For specifications that have not reached stability yet, there
   must be a clear agreement with Sun on what will be submitted to
   JTC1, the schedule for submission and the degree of stability.  It
   would be desirable that Sun makes use of the open forum process
   that JTC1 can offer (for example in SC22 Java Study Group) for
   development of the specifications, as well as of the resources and
   competencies that can be made available there.

3. Scope of the PAS submissions

 · Sun should commit to the delivery of a coherent and well defined
   set of specifications within a bounded timeframe.  The current
   phrasing, "Some of the Java Core APIs [that] can be considered
   reasonably stable" is too vague.

 · Such a coherent set could be: JVM, JNI, Java language, "net",
   "lang", "io" and "jdbc" libraries.

 · Sun should also identify which other specifications are planned
   to be submitted via the PAS process within the next two years; if
   those are not yet mature, AFNOR suggests that an open forum be used
   to finalize them.

We hope that Sun will review its submission in the light of these
comments and come back with acceptable solutions.  AFNOR expects that
JTC1 will convene a ballot resolution meeting to discuss those.

AFNOR suggests that Sun also investigates another venue for
standardization of Java.  Those could be:

 · via usual ISO/IEC processes, such as submission of specifications
   to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22.  A combined vote on New Work Items with final
   CD text would lead to rapid adoption of the specifications, noting
   the existing consensus in favor of Java.  AFNOR SC22 experts would
   strongly and actively support such activities,

 · via adoption by an existing A-liaison standardization body, or a
   consortium which is already a recognized PAS submittor, and
   fast-track to JTC1,

 · Via submission by a JTC1 member body.

On the PAS process itself, AFNOR makes the following comments:

The existing PAS process does not (strictly speaking) prohibits single
companies from acting as a PAS submitter.  But the PAS Management
Guide contains a set of criteria (section 3.2) qualifying the openness
of the organization and its processes for achieving consensus.  Sun's
submission does not provide satisfactory answers in that area: it
seems clear that the processes used by Sun to interact with its
partners and with a larger consultative base regarding Java
specifications are such that Sun retains a final decision-making
power.

AFNOR considers that, in the general case, these criteria are valid.
In the Java case, AFNOR balances its view with the value to users and
the market acceptance of the Java technology.

Approval of Sun's submission (as single company) would set a precedent
those consequences are not yet known.  AFNOR thus recommends revising
the PAS management guide to

 · either disallow submissions from single companies

 · or allow them but with a new set of qualifying criteria for that
   particular case.

---------------------------------
Attachment 8   Germany

We disapprove Document ISO/IEC JTC1 N 4615, Application fron Sun
Microsystems, Inc. for Recognition as a Submitter of Publicly
Available Specifications for Sun´s Java Technologies for the reasons
given in the following comment: 

Comment:

DIN has studied carefully JTC1 N 4615, the application by Sun
Microsystems, Inc. for recognition as a PAS Submitter, and N4669, the
amendment 1 to N 4615.  DIN has also read with interest the
contributions of various organizations to the JTC1 U.S.  TAG on the
subject matter, and wishes to submit the following statements
accompanying its negative vote on JTC1 N 4615.

1. DIN, in principle, welcomes the intention to submit Java for
   international standardization.

2. DIN has given the PAS process in JTC1 full support and continues to
   do so in the future.

3. DIN does, in principle, not see a reason why a single for-profit
   company should not be recognized as a PAS submitter.

4. However, it is obvious that the recognition of a single company may
   have a strong effect on its position in the market.  Therefore, in
   order to avoid any undue competitive advantage to such a company,
   it is important that thorough scrutiny is applied to such an
   application.

5. As it is the first time JTC1 has to deal with an application of a
   single company, the decision of JTC1 on N 4615 will establish a
   precedent for future similar applications.  Again, this speaks for
   thorough scrutiny of N 4615.

6. Though formally the document under ballot is only N 4615, DIN holds
   that the statements provided by Sun Microsystems, Inc. in N4669, in
   particular regarding patents, copyright, scope of application form
   an integral part of their application.  However, this requires
   explicit confirmation by Sun Microsystems.

7. DIN has identified the items below where it considers N 4615 in
   combination with N4669 as not satisfactory.  Therefore, we request
   that Sun Microsystems Inc. respond to these concerns and that a
   ballot resolution meeting or another ballot evaluate whether the
   responses are satisfactory.

   a) Trademark: 

      It is noted that Sun Microsystems holds a number of Java related
      trademarks.  However, such trademarks should in future be
      associated to the respective International Standards and their
      implementation.  Anyone who has properly implemented the
      respective standard should be free to use the trademarks.
      Proper implementation may be testified by a supplier's
      declaration of conformity.

   b) Maintenance and enhancements: 

      It is recognized that Sun is committed to provide the necessary
      resources for ongoing maintenance.  However, the development
      process as described in clause 3.2.1 of N 4615 does not cater
      for sufficient openness.  In particular, the role of JTC1 and
      its member bodies in contributing to future evolutions of Java
      needs clarification.

---------------------------------
Attachment 9   Ireland

Comments of Irish National Body on documents ISO/IEC JTC1 N4615 and
N4649:

Application from Sun Microsystems, Inc. for Recognition as a Submitter
of Publicly Available Specifications for Sun's Java Technologies, and
Amendment 1 thereto.

Ireland's negative vote will be reconsidered in the event that the
following concerns are satisfactorily resolved.

1. As noted in document ISO/IEC JTC1 N4649, the specifications to be
   submitted consist of the Java language, the Java Byte Code, the
   Java Virtual Machine, and the Core Java APIs (java.lang, java.util,
   java.io).  We appreciate this clarification which ensures that any
   submissions to ISO/IEC JTC1 shall comprise this useful minimal
   subset of the Java technology for open Java development and open
   Java execution environments.  However, a more detailed precise
   list, with document references, of the specifications to be
   submitted to the PAS Process is required.

2. Any application for recognition as a PAS submitter by a body other
   than an open consensus specification-development organization
   should be accompanied by a clear assurance that the applicant
   agrees that maintenance (which includes corrections and
   enhancements) of any ISO/IEC standard(s) resulting from its PAS
   inputs shall be conducted by ISO/IEC JTC1.

3. The documents provided indicate that the applicant reserves
   restrictive rights on the use of the term Java.  Ireland requires
   unequivocal agreement from the applicant permitting free use,
   without restriction, of the term Java in resulting ISO/IEC
   standards, in compliant products, and in ancillary literature.

4. Conformance to a core Java set should be capable of being claimed
   using established Supplier Declaration of Conformity statements;
   any mandatory requirement for testing or verification by the
   applicant or agents is not supported.

5. It is not clear that the applicant would grant ISO/IEC the right to
   distribute standards that might be derived from PAS submission.
   The applicant should clearly grant ISO/IEC full rights to publish
   and distribute such standards.

6. Use of the PAS process should accord with the open voluntary
   technical consensus process which is the hallmark of JTC1.  Ireland
   therefore strongly recommends that the development of any
   specification to be submitted to JTC1 PAS Process shall be
   conducted according to clearly written and evident open procedures
   that take account of all inputs.

---------------------------------
Attachment 10   Italy

Italy would like to see Java technology succeed, because it is the
foundation of a major open system application technology which has the
market growing potential to benefit the industry as a whole.

Italy believes that customers will benefit from bringing stable core
Java specification under democratic change control, and that JTC1 is
the proper forum for this.

To us "international standardization" in JTC1 has meant that any
modifications to relatively stable specifications is made under open,
consensus based change control procedures, and that access to the
standardized technologies is available to everyone and on reasonable
terms if patented.

Italy think ISO/IEC JTC1 N4615 and Amendment 1 N4669 (Application of
Sun Microsystems, Inc. for recognition as a Submitter of Publicly
Available Specifications for Sun's Java Technologies...) needs further
clarification on this regard before endorsement.

Therefore Italy casts a negative ballot - no support with comments. 

When the identified concerns are satisfactorily addressed by Sun (SMI)
in a modification to their application, this negative ballot will be
changed to one of support.

Italy has three areas of concern, which are the subject of the next
three paragraphs: 

1. Scope

The specifications offered by Sun for standardization must be clearly
identified, with a detail comparable to that of a bill of materials.

Sun application does not offer sufficient detail to assess with
precision the scope of the submission.

The conformance statements must also be clearly identified. 

2. Change control

Future maintenance and evolution of Java specifications should be done
in an open, consensus based process within JTC1.  Revisions should not
result from subsequent submissions of a Sun specification using the
PAS process, as the current text seems to imply.

3. Intellectual Property Rights

The standards published by JTC1 must be able to use the name Java in
their documents.  Current wording of the application suggests Sun does
not permit the use of the Java identification.

---------------------------------
Attachment 11   Japan

The National Body of Japan (JNB) endorses the application from Sun
Microsystems, Inc. (SMI) for recognition as a PAS submitter provided
that the following conditions are accepted by SMI.  JNB reserves the
right to change its position to "disapprove," if part or all of these
conditions are not accepted.

1. PASs to be qualified for submission

PASs to be qualified for submission upon the approval of this
particular application should be limited to the specifications of the
Java language, Java class file format, Java byte codes, and Java Core
APIs which will have all been publicly available at the time of the
submission.  Other items including functional enhancements of the
current Java should not be included in the submission at this time.

2. Intellectual Property Rights

JNB endorses that JTC1 honor the Patents, Copyright, Trademark, Logo
and other privileges that SMI rightfully claims on Java technologies
after the transportation of Java to International Standards (IS), and
that JTC1 post factual statements, if requested, on the terms and
conditions concerning these rights, and the scope and history of Java
technologies, etc. in the informative annex or some appropriate
section of the ISs to be published, provided that the conditions 2.1
to 2.4 described below are all accepted by SMI.

2.1 Regarding the patents, SMI should follow the ISO/IEC patent policy. 

2.2 The copyright of the IS publications based on the PAS
    transposition should be assigned to ISO/IEC, and

    (a) what the ISs will bear should only be the copyright notices of
        ISO/IEC and not of SMI, and 

    (b) SMI should not make any claims on copyright fee against
        ISO/IEC and National Bodies which will publish their national
        standards based on the PAS transposed ISs.

    Note: The POSIX case referred to in the SMI application as an
    example to pattern after is one of the worst cases with regard to
    the copyright indication in the IS, and therefore should not be
    followed (See cover pages of POSIX standard).

2.3 The published ISs should not bear Trademark and/or Logo of Java,
    and the free and unlimited use of terms "Java" or "JAVA" should be
    permitted in the ISs to be published and the National Standards
    derived or translated from these ISs.

2.4 Conformance test or conformity assessment of a product based on
    the PAS transposed ISs should not be monopolized by the PAS
    submitter and hence not by SMI.

3. Enhancement

If SMI wishes to propose the standardization of the enhanced functions
of Java technologies in the future which are not dealt with this time,
SMI should follow the normal JTC1 NP procedure in consultation with
appropriate member bodies or subgroups of JTC1, or should submit
another application for recognition as a PAS submitter.

4. Maintenance

JNB assumes that JTC1 take the responsibility for the maintenance of
the published IS in question.  If SMI claims the retention of the
responsibility, SMI should administer it in collaboration with
appropriate groups in JTC1 in an open and transparent process.  If a
situation arises that SMI cannot continue to fulfill its
responsibility for some reasons SMI should immediately consult with
JTC1 on this fact.

---------------------------------
Attachment 12   Netherlands

The current JAVA Technologies definitely enjoy great interests from a
wide range of manufacturers, developers, providers, users, consumers,
etc.  The fundamental "open"-concept of these technologies, the large
interests in JAVA implementations from a broad group of users, and the
great support of these technologies by international consortia of
manufacturers from different marketplaces, make the JAVA Technologies
one of the most characteristic products suitable for the consensus
making process within ISO/IEC.

Therefore the JTC1 National Member Body of The Netherlands, NNI,
strongly emphasizes the importance and the need of bringing the JAVA
Technologies into the ISO/IEC standardization process.

Accordingly, NNI would like JTC1 to approve a New Work Item Proposal
to start work on JAVA within an appropriate SC of JTC1.  Another
possibility might be to set up a specific Business Team for JAVA.

However, one of the most valuable concepts of the standardization
process within ISO/IEC is that "all parties concerned" shall be
involved in the approval and, especially in the JAVA case, the
maintenance process.  Only when all parties concerned can be involved
in the process, the resulting standards will become broadly based.

Additionally, as far as the question about Property Rights on input
documents to JTC1 is concerned, NNI would like to state that the
ownership of specifications during the approval and maintenance
process within JTC1 should be in principle in the hands of the JTC1
itself, i.e. the responsible SC within JTC1.  Only in case the
PAS-submitter is a consensus-based standards body which is accessible
for all parties concerned, the involvement of these parties can be
guaranteed.

Based on these considerations, NNI opposes the recognition of a
individual profit-organization as PAS-Submitter to route the JAVA
Technologies into JTC1.  Although NNI recognizes that the current
procedures do not exclude individual profit-organizations to apply for
the status of PAS-Submitter, NNI would prefer (at this moment and in
this case) the disapproval of an application from an individual
profit-organization as PAS-submitter rather than the approval of a
specific PAS from this organization.

Finally, NNI strongly advises JTC1 to revisit the PAS-procedures and
to set up more flexible procedures for the recognition of a
PAS-Submitter versus the recognition of a PAS.

---------------------------------
Attachment 13   Norway

Comments from Norway on JTC1 N 4615

Norway votes NO to Sun's application to become a JTC1 PAS submitter.

Even though we are very enthusiastic about the Java technology, we
believe it's unwise to let a single commercial company, like Sun,
become a PAS submitter.  There are many problematic issues concerning
the openness of the development process, and it's hard to expect a
for-profit company to conduct their development and product evolution
in the manner of a standards organization.

Despite this, if the details around the input and review mechanism are
more clearly mapped out by SMI, we intend to re-evaluate the issue.
Until that happens, we suggest that Sun follow a more traditional (but
fast) standards path.  The Java Study Group in JTC1/SC22 has
previously suggested such a path to Sun.

---------------------------------
Attachment 14   Romania

Romanian objections on the proposal for a Java standard (ISO/IEC/JTC1
N 4615): 

1. Sun company wants to keep the right on the trademark "Java." This
   will lead to Sun's control over mentioning the name "Java," So
   being able to control the competitor's and thereof the market.  If
   Java specifications will be approved as a standard and Sun will
   keep the ownership of the trademark "Java," this will lead to a
   situation when a commercial company (i.e. Sun) will own an
   international standard.

2. Sun company wants to keep the intellectual property on Java.  This
   will forbid future development of Java technology and its evolution
   as required by user's market.  If ISO accepts these specifications
   as standard, Sun can deny any further improvements and changes of
   Java, even if proposed by ISO! 

3. For a technology to become an international standard, it must
   become acceptably stable and mature, and this is not the case for
   Java.  As specified even in the standard proposal (section
   4-Indication of Planned Submission), not all components of Java
   technology are mature enough to be standardized.  Sun company
   proposes to standardize a whole technology and not separate
   components, so it is highly necessary that all the components of
   the technology are stable.

4. Even the way Sun uses for this standard proposal, Fast Track,
   suggests that Sun rushes to standardize a technology before being
   widely and publicly discussed.  Sun proposes a new information
   technology (Java) which is supposed to have a long-term impact on
   informatics (or else a standardization is not justified); or, such
   a standardization can not be done without being consulted all
   interested parts and anyway not within Fast Track methodology.

---------------------------------
Attachment 15   Switzerland

Switzerland fully recognizes the importance and need to bring the
emerging Java technology into the realm of international, open systems
standardization.  It is our understanding that this technology is
emerging and will undergo further development in the coming years.

However, we do not consider PAS submission(s) by a single company as
the best vehicle to serve: 

1) the interests of users of Java implementations, 

2) the industry developing this technology, and 

3) the standardization process. 

Because it is an emerging technology, we even do not believe that it
is desirable to allow a limited PAS submission, e.g. for the Java
language specification only.  Indeed, Switzerland would recommend a
better process right from the beginning.

Furthermore, although not clarified yet completely, we assume that SUN
Microsystems Inc. would be willing to fully comply with the ISO/IEC
IPR policy.  Without such a compliance the standardization effort
would be deemed to fail from the beginning.

Main interests of users are the possibilities: 

1) to obtain the best - in terms of value for money - implementations
of the technology by being able to choose between competing
implementations, 

2) to ensure the best protection of their investments. 

Such interests are in conflict with a technology that is controlled,
filtered, and implemented with unfair advanced knowledge of a single
company.  Such interests are better served by a consensus process - by
all parties affected - for the definition and specification of the
technology.

Main interests of industry are: 

1) the largest possible market, 

2) room for added value by specifications allowing competing
implementations, 

3) open-endedness in the specifications to allow ongoing development
of the technology.

Also these interests cannot be optimally satisfied by a single company
approach.

Main interests of standardization are: 

1) to provide a process that balances the interests of all parties
   concerned, 

2) to allow for vetting of a forthcoming standard by top specialists
   in the technology, 

3) to provide a real public control of the standards in order to
   maximize the room for openness/open systems and for added value for
   competing implementations.

These interests are not well-covered by the PAS process as requested
for the Java technology: (re) publication of a specification that is
already published on a commercial basis comes close to robber-stamping
and is seriously devaluating the value of an International Standard.

Concluding, to our view, one or more of the well-known standardization
processes serve better the above discussed interests of the various
stakeholders than a PAS submission by a single company:

- ISO/IEC JTC1, in particular SC22. 

- A national process, e.g. by ANSI, the P-member of JTC1 in the USA. 

- An A-liaison, e.g. ECMA (in combination with JTC1 and/or using
  fast-track processing).

- An open consortium, e.g. the Open Group (which has already been
  recognized as PAS Submitter).

---------------------------------
Attachment 16   United Kingdom

The UK votes negatively with comments on the application, contained in
JTC1 N 4615, from Sun Microsystems, Inc. for recognition as a PAS
submitter.  It does so because of the considerations a) to d) shown
below.  If these are satisfactorily addressed (for example in a ballot
resolution meeting) then the UK vote will change to YES.  The UK notes
that the Management Guide for the transposition of PASs into
International Standards (JTC1 N 3582, which is referred to in
Supplement 1 of the 1995 JTC1 Directives) observes that the
recognition ballot should be in accordance with the JTC1 Directives.
Either a ballot resolution meeting or a re-submission by the
originator of a modified application addressing NB concerns would meet
this requirement.

The UK's areas of concern are:

a) Scope of submissions

Although Sun has issued an amendment to its application (in JTC1
N4669), which includes an amended scope statement, further
identification of specific technical documents is required to ensure a
sufficient set of the Java Core APIs be standardized to allow
development of real, practical, and useful applications.

b) Ongoing maintenance and changes 

The response by Sun does not appear to fully commit to the accepted
revision cycle process.  For these reasons, future maintenance and
major revision of the Java specifications should preferably be
undertaken under an open, consensus-based process subject to JTC1
procedures, probably within a JTC1 SC.

c) Openness of the process and future plans

There is an indication, both in the original application and its
amendment, that Sun would wish to remain the final arbiter of change.
The current submission does not make it sufficiently clear that the
potential submitter's process is such that it qualifies as one "that
uses reasonable processes for achieving broad consensus among many
parties" as described in 3.2 of document JTC1 N 3582.  Clarification
is needed on this matter.

d) Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

If the trademark retention rights described in JTC1 N4669 result in an
inability of a standard to make use of the name Java, this may have a
detrimental effect and cause confusion in the marketplace.  Therefore,
the term "Java" should be able to be used in the title of any ISO/IEC
JTC1 standard, which is adopted from a Java specification submission.
In addition, use of the trademarked term Java should be relatively
freely available to those using it to indicate conformance to such
standards.  The UK notes that, when similar situations have arisen in
the past, that a resolution, satisfactory to both the IPR holder and
to ISO has been possible, and should be in this instance.

---------------------------------
Attachment 17   United States

In its review of Sun's application to be a PAS submitter for Java
Technologies, the U.S.  National Body has identified three areas (IPR,
Scope, and Maintenance) that need further clarification and change
before the U.S.  can endorse the application.  Therefore U.S. National
Body votes "No" on Document ISO/IEC JTC1 N 4615, Application from Sun
Microsystems, Inc. for recognition as a Submitter of Publicly
Available Specifications for Sun's Java Technologies for the following
reasons:

Intellectual Property Rights

 · The name "Java" should be associated with the standard and
   implementors meeting the conformance requirements of the standard
   should be free to use that terminology when referring to their
   implementations.  In a previous standard -- Ada -- there was also a
   trademark issue, which was successfully resolved in the trademark
   statement contained in the standard, which is offered as a sample
   means for resolving the issue (see Attachment).

 · Testing and evaluation by the PAS submitter (or any other third
   party controlled by the PAS submitter) is not a prerequisite for
   claiming conformance to the standard.

 · Comments submitted by other organizations, whether to correct
   perceived deficiencies in the original submission or to specify
   enhancements, should be considered to be submitted with a
   non-exclusive license, permitting the Java copyright holder to use
   the comments but without restricting the rights of the author of
   the comments to exploit their own intellectual property rights.

Scope of the Application

 · In order to properly assess the qualifications of a candidate for
   Submitter of Publicly Available Specifications, it is necessary to
   be able to assess those qualifications in a specific context.  In
   the case of a single for-profit company, the scope of the company's
   business may be very broad or unclear.  Where the scope of proposed
   submissions is not obvious by the nature of the company, the scope
   of potential submissions should be explicitly identified.  SMI has
   included a scope statement in an amendment to its application
   (ISO/IEC JTC1 N4669), indicating its willingness to identify
   specific scope.  The U.S. seeks confirmation that only those
   technologies listed within the scope statement will be considered
   for PAS submission under this PAS application.  To enable
   appropriate evaluation, the scope statement should identify the
   specifications proposed for submission by their current document
   references.

Maintenance

 · The U.S. National Body believes that responsibilities for
   maintenance and enhancements should rest with JTC1 and not with the
   PAS submitter in cases where the PAS Submitter is not a
   consensus-based standards body.  Therefore, the U.S. requires that
   once a PAS is adopted as a standard, any subsequent revisions of
   that specification will be conducted under JTC1 procedures, as
   opposed to a revision being submitted as a subsequent PAS.

Openness of Process

 · Criterion 3.2 requires that an applicant employ "reasonable
   processes for achieving broad consensus." Although the term
   "reasonable" is subject to interpretation, the process described in
   the application appears to be a three-stage process in which the
   first two stages have limited participation.

 · The processes described in the application contain restrictions
   against participation.  By limiting participation, the
   specifications proposed for submission may not have benefited from
   the diversity of input associated with the consensus process.
   Nevertheless, the U.S. National Body recognizes the value of this
   set of specifications and is willing to permit the ballot
   resolution process to be employed to undertake whatever corrections
   might be required before any specification submitted under the
   procedures for processing publicly available specifications is
   accepted as an international standard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment to U.S. Ballot on N 4615

The following text is offered as a sample agreement for use of a
trademark:

"Copyright 1980, 1982, 1983 owned by the United States Government as
represented by the Under Secretary of Defense, Research and
Engineering.  All rights reserved.  Provided that notice of copyright
is included on the first page, this document may be copied in its
entirety without alteration or as altered by (1) adding text that is
clearly marked as an insertion; (2) shading or highlighting existing
text; (3) deleting examples.  Permission to publish other excerpts
should be obtained from the Ada Joint Program Office (OUSDRE(R&AT),
The Pentagon, Washington, D.C.  20301, U.S.A.

"Ada(R) is a registered trademark of the Untied States Government,
Department of Defense, Under Secretary for Research and Engineering.
Its use is administered by the Ada Joint Program Office (AJPO).  In
all contexts, use of the term 'Ada' should indicate conformance to the
standard.  In keeping with policies on voluntary conformance, use of
the term Ada is equivalent to a voluntary statement of conformance to
the standard.

"The use of the trademarked term Ada will be made freely available to
those who use it to indicate conformance to the standard and in
accordance with the following guidelines: "In any published material
the first appearance of the term Ada must be properly acknowledged and
include the statement 'Ada is a registered trademark of the
U.S. Government (Ada Joint Program Office).' "Describing, advertising,
or promoting a language processor as an 'Ada' processor is equivalent
to making a voluntary statement of conformance to ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A.

"The term Ada may be used in describing language processors that are
not completely conforming or are not making a claim of conformance
provided that there is a precise, easily visible statement of their
non-conformance at the same time and in the same context.

"Uses of the term Ada other than those described above, including all
organizations, companies and product names incorporating or utilizing
the term Ada, need written authorization from the AJPO.  Those persons
advertising or otherwise promoting a language processor asserted as
being a standard Ada processor for sale or public use are required to
provide the AJPO with evidence sufficient to demonstrate conformance
to the Ada standard.

"Use of the trademark does not imply any endorsement or warranty of
the product by either DoD or ANSI.

"The Department of Defense (DoD), as the trademark owner, will allow
others to use the Ada trademark free of charge and will not take
action to prevent use of the Ada trademark so long as the trademark is
used properly according to the above policy.  Misuse of the trademark
may lead to legal action.

"In the interest of information interchange, all users of this
standard are encouraged to contact the Ada Joint Program Office,
Department of Defense, OUSD(R&E), Washington, D.C.  20301, U.S.A.
Users of the trademark and those reprinting the standard are required
to notify the AJPO."

---------------------------------
Attachment 18   Slovenia

In our review of Sun's application to be a PAS submitted for Java
Technologies, we have identified several areas that need further
clarification and change before Slovenia can endorse the application.
Therefore Slovenia votes "No" on Document ISO/IEC JTC1 N 4615,
Application from Sun Microsystems Inc. for recognition as a submitter
of Publicly Available Specifications for Sun's Java Technologies for
the following reasons:

1. The Sun's application, as submitted for consideration by the
ISO/IEC JTC1 Committee for Information Technology, indicates that Sun
is retaining full ownership and control over its Java specifications
which is not in line with the ISO/IEC policy and international
standard ownership.

Sun should correct the numerous intellectual property rights
deficiencies in its proposal and present them similarly to the other
open standards forum recognized as PAS submitters such as ECMA, X/Open
or EWOS before it asks again for PAS submission or Fast Track JTC1
process for ISO/IEC standard transposition of JAVA technology.

2. Intellectual Property Rights: The name "Java" could be associated
with an international standard (as was the case with ADA) but under
condition the standard and associated name become free for use by
implementers similarly to the other standard technologies standardized
by ISO.

Testing and evaluation by the PAS submitter (or any other third party
controlled by the PAS submitter) could not be a prerequisite for
claiming conformance to the standard.  Conformance testing must be in
line with the other international, national or regional procedures
adopted by open standard forums.

Comments submitted by other organizations, whether to correct
perceived deficiencies in the original submission or to specify
enhancements, should be considered to be submitted with a
non-exclusive license, as is the case with other ISO standard
development process.

3. Trademark: Sun's proposal that its Java technology be recognized by
ISO as a standard while allowing Sun to retain ownership and control
over the "Java" name must be corrected according to the traditional
ISO practice (ADA, POSIX).

4. Patent: Sun's application does not demonstrate that the company
will fully comply with the ISO/IEC Patent Policy.  The fact that Sun
has licensed its Java technology to more than 75 licensees, as Sun
claims, does not guarantee that Sun will comply with the ISO patent
policy in the future if Sun retains all rights coming out from a
patent holder.

5. Maintenance: Sun's Application does not demonstrate a willingness
to allow all affected parties to participate in the on-going
development of the Standard Sun's Java technology on an equal footing.
The fact that a number of vendors have chosen to collaborate with Sun
on the evolution of its Java technology is not enough to guarantee for
an open standard process to further develop that technology.  We
believe that responsibilities for maintenance and enhancements of the
standard should rest with JTC1 and not with the PAS submitter in cases
where the PAS Submitter is not a consensus-based standard body like
X-Open or EWOS.

Therefore, Slovenia expect that once a PAS is adopted as a standard,
any subsequent revisions of that specification to be conducted under
JTC1 procedures.

If the former comments are adopted and objections accepted with
complimentary corrections in the PAS proposal Slovenia is willing to
change the vote to YES

---------------------------------
Attachment 19   New Zealand

New Zealand approves Document ISO/IEC JTC1 N4615, Application from Sun
Microsystems Inc, for Recognition as a Submitter of Publicly Available
Specifications for Sun's java technologies with the attached comments:

"That the contentious areas that have arisen in recent international
discussion are resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the JTC1
executive and Sun Microsystems Inc. These areas cover:

 · intellectual property rights

 · arrangements for ongoing maintenance of the resulting PAS
   specifications

 · suitable processes for achieving broad consensus

 · specific identification of proposed specifications, if possible
   referencing existing documents."

---------------------------------
Attachment 20   Sweden

Swedish comments on JTC1 N 4615 and JTC1 N4669 regarding SUN
Microsystem Inc´s, SMI, request to become a recognized PAS submitter
for the JAVA technology

Sweden will support acceptance of SUN as a recognized PAS submitter
for JAVA technologies according to the requirements in JTC1 N 3582, on
condition that the following requirements will be met:

 · SMI and all others involved must be aware of, that recognition of a
   PAS submitter for JAVA technologies does not imply adoption of
   submitted drafts as ISO/IEC standards.  P-members shall be allowed
   to vote NO with technical comments.  These technical comments shall
   be discussed at a resolution meeting to ensure objective
   development of the proposed standards.

 · SMI shall allow the name "JAVA" be associated with the standards and
   when referring to implementations;

 · SMI shall not require that testing and evaluation shall be done by
   SMI before an implementor can claim conformance with the standards.
   Of course, each implementor must ensure compliance with the
   standards and its testing requirements.  The choosen method is the
   responsibility of the implementor.

Sweden fully understands the difficulties to have PASs modified at
such a late stage, but will anyhow see that this part of the
standardisation process will still be in place.

_______________________ end of SC22 N2530 _______________________