JTC1 International Fee

[Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)]

I just talked on the phone with Bill Rinehulf (sp?) who clarified for
me much of the situation with regard to this recent added $300 bill.
The word is that what we had been previously paying supported just the
operation of X3/CBEMA and the new fee is analogous but for JTC1/ANSI.
Apparently the revised funding procedures were worked out by committee
at that level and were partly intended to attain more equitable support
by changing the financing from voluntary corporate support, with many
participating organizations not contributing funds, to "distributed"
support of the subgroup participants themselves (so that the organizations
would be forced to contribute their part).  Unfortunately from our point
of view, this was sprung on us by surprise, with what seemed to be
insufficient justification, and with a disproportionate number of small
companies or individual participants impacted by the change.  Even in
organizations the size of mine, it's the local low-level administration
that has to be tapped for payment of such bills and it can be difficult
or impossible to persuade them to do so, even when higher corporate levels
supposedly encourage participation in standards activities.  And of course
the cost to small organizations and private individuals may have just
crossed the threshold above which the relatively abstract return value
from participation is just not worth the price.

Thus to many of us this new policy does not seem very satisfactory.
However, according to what I was told it is not meant to finance a
sudden increase in international liaison, as I had gathered from the
original cover letter, but rather to implement a new method of paying
for the same, presumably mostly necessary, activity that has been
occurring already.

Many of us are going to have to find new ways to come up with funding
or else drop out, which is unfortunate indeed.  It is a pity that there
is no "national policy" perception that JTC1/ANSI-style standards
coordination should be financed in some more committed way; one would
think NIST is the obvious agency to be funded for this but apparently not.