From rinehuls@access.digex.net Thu Jul 24 22:17:45 1997 Received: from access5.digex.net (qlrhmEbBUV1EY@access5.digex.net [205.197.245.196]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA28255 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:17:00 +0200 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access5.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA27094 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:16:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "william c. rinehuls" To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk Subject: SC22 N2530 - JTC 1 Vote Summary of Sun Microsystems Application for PAS Recognition Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE ________________ 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: rinehuls@access.digex.net _______________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:=20 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: lrajchel@ansi.org --------------------------------- Summary of Voting on JTC 1 N 4615 | Approve =20 | | Approve with comments | | | Disapprove | | | | Abstain 'P' Members | | | | | Comments --------------|---|---|---|---|------------------- Australia | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Austria | X | | | | =20 Belgium | | X | | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Brazil | | X | | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Canada | | | | X | SEE ATTACHED=20 China | | | | | =20 Columbia | | | | | =20 Denmark | | X | | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Egypt | | | | | =20 Finland | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 France | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Germany | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Hungary | | | | | =20 Ireland | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Italy | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Japan | X | | | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Korea, Rep.of | X | | | | =20 Netherlands | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 New Zealand | | X | | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Norway | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Romania | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Russian Fed. | X | | | | =20 Slovenia | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Sweden | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 Switzerland | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 United Kingdom| | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 USA | | | X | | SEE ATTACHED=20 --------------|---|---|---|---|------------------- (*) 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: =B7 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. =B7 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. =B7 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 =B7 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. =B7 Such a coherent set could be: JVM, JNI, Java language, "net", "lang", "io" and "jdbc" libraries. =B7 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: =B7 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, =B7 via adoption by an existing A-liaison standardization body, or a consortium which is already a recognized PAS submittor, and fast-track to JTC1, =B7 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 =B7 either disallow submissions from single companies =B7 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=B4s Java Technologies for the reasons given in the following comment:=20 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:=20 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:=20 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.=20 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:=20 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.=20 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.=20 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=20 (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):=20 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!=20 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:=20 1) the interests of users of Java implementations,=20 2) the industry developing this technology, and=20 3) the standardization process.=20 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:=20 1) to obtain the best - in terms of value for money - implementations of the technology by being able to choose between competing implementations,=20 2) to ensure the best protection of their investments.=20 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:=20 1) the largest possible market,=20 2) room for added value by specifications allowing competing implementations,=20 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:=20 1) to provide a process that balances the interests of all parties concerned,=20 2) to allow for vetting of a forthcoming standard by top specialists in the technology,=20 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.=20 - A national process, e.g. by ANSI, the P-member of JTC1 in the USA.=20 - 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=20 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 =B7 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). =B7 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. =B7 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 =B7 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 =B7 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 =B7 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. =B7 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: =B7 intellectual property rights =B7 arrangements for ongoing maintenance of the resulting PAS specifications =B7 suitable processes for achieving broad consensus =B7 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=B4s, 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: =B7 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. =B7 SMI shall allow the name "JAVA" be associated with the standards and when referring to implementations; =B7 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 _______________________