From BJSHEP@ausvm6.vnet.ibm.com Wed Apr  7 06:53:28 1993
Received: from vnet.ibm.com by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA01788
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <sc24@dkuug.dk>); Wed, 7 Apr 1993 18:54:29 +0200
Message-Id: <199304071654.AA01788@dkuug.dk>
Received: from AUSVM6 by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5664;
   Wed, 07 Apr 93 12:52:53 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 11:53:28 CDT
From: BJSHEP@ausvm6.vnet.ibm.com
To: sc24@dkuug.dk
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

FROM: Barry J Shepherd
      Chairman of SC24

TO:  All interested SC24 people

SUBJECT: PREMO NP LB comments


The results of the PREMO new project proposal letter ballot are now
available.  Steve Carson has kindly volunteered to get them keystroked
and distributed via EMail.

The NP technically met the requirements for incorporation into the
program of work of JTC1.  However, there were many comments about the
very broad statement of scope, and perceived overlap with the work of
SC18 and SC29.

I believe the document developed by the PREMO experts in New Orleans
(on scope and liaison groups) should provide valuable input into an
EMail dialog on the comments, and potential responses from SC24.  I would
like to be copied on the EMail, and suggest that all contributors to the
discussion follow the rules listed below.

1.  Remember that EVERY note you send WILL be seen by SC18 and SC29.

2.  Every national body comment is sincere.

3.  Every national body comment must be addressed by SC24, and receive
    a response from SC24.

4.  NO ONE (including me) can commit SC24 to take any action which was
    not approved by a vote of the SC24 national bodies.

5.  I encourage SC24 members in countries voting NO to determine who was
    the author of comments accompanying the NO vote, so we can try to
    address their concerns through direct dialog with them.

6.  We need to have a draft response to ALL comments available prior to
    the July Steamboat Springs meeting, for final discussion and approval
    at that time.

7.  See points 1 and 4 above.

Do not be discouraged.  The vote was positive.  We just have to address
the legitimate concerns of other groups, while protecting our right to
develop standards that fall within our approved scope.