Annex M The Transposition of Publicly Available Specifications into International Standards - A Management Guide

M1 Purpose and Scope of this Guide

The international world of IT standardisation is changing: ISO/IEC JTC 1 has defined and implemented a policy that encourages and assists the transposition of technical specifications from sources outside of JTC 1 into international standards.  The purpose of this document is to make this policy known to a larger audience world-wide.  In particular, its purpose is to explain the transposition process, its benefits, and the obligations to potential owners of such specifications.  The Guide intentionally uses a narrative language, hence no in-depth knowledge of the formalities of international standardisation is required.  The prime audience for this document are managers of organisations that have developed candidate specifications for submission to international standardisation.  After having read the Guide, you should appreciate the value to all parties involved of having your specification adopted as an International Standard, and you will understand the process you will need to follow.

The scope of this Guide is limited to the transposition of Publicly Available Specifications (PAS) into international standards.  Such a standard may be either an IS (International Standard) or an ISP (International Standardized Profile).

The objective of the Guide is to inform potential submitters of PASs for transposition.  It does not replace the JTC 1 Directives or parts thereof.  In cases of conflict, the JTC 1 Directives prevail.
Having read this Guide, a PAS originator should be able to judge the benefits for their own organisation to submit a specification for adoption as an international standard.  A PAS originator requiring explanation on the material in this guide or wishing to consider the possibility of a PAS submission further should contact any of the organisations identified in Annex A.

M2  Benefits of the international standardisation process

International Standards (IS) issued by JTC 1 are considered the most authoritative standards on IT.  International Standardized Profiles (ISPs) constitute a special form of international standards that bring together elements of other Standards.

Both ISs and ISPs are recognised throughout the world, and in many countries constitute the technical regulatory basis for public procurement of IT goods and services.  The transposition of a specification into an IS or ISP makes it eligible for such procurement, and hence widens the market recognition of such a specification.

M3  The JTC 1 Policy regarding Publicly Available Specifications

JTC 1 has decided that
"...  it (JTC 1) will provide the capability of accepting standard solutions to IT problems that have been developed outside JTC 1.  ..."

This JTC 1 landmark decision recognises the value of the work of other organisations and the contribution they may make to International IT standardisation.  It aims at complementing existing or forthcoming JTC 1 programs by other leading edge activity with the objective of providing the best standards worldwide.

Though the manner of transposing an acceptable specification from another organisation into an international standard mainly follows existing JTC 1 processes, the new process is significantly expedited by the concept of a recognised PAS Submitter.  This will help to achieve a nominal eleven months period as a target for the transposition, and thus greatly reduce the time needed to establish international standards in areas of rapidly developing technology.  As a result of this process, a specification will emerge with the enhanced status of an international standard.This is to the benefit of both the owner of the specification and JTC 1.

M4  JTC 1's strategic orientation and its standards establishment processes
PAS originators are invited to explicitly reference their Common Strategic Characteristics when submitting their application or any PAS for transposition.

The normal JTC 1 process to establish an International Standard is through work in one of its technical bodies, which, once it has led to technical consensus, will be concluded by a four month ballot among JTC 1 National Bodies, to promote a specification to an IS.  The duration of the consensus-building phase is dependent on the complexity of the subject, and the amount of resources available from JTC 1 members.

The Fast Track process has been established in JTC 1 to allow a standard from any source to be submitted by a National Body or an A-liaison organisation directly into a final JTC 1 ballot, to become an IS.  The duration of the ballot is six months.  As a result, the proposed specification may become an IS, possibly with minor modifications.

International Standardized Profiles (ISPs) are international standards which bring together elements of ISs.

M5 The PAS transposition process

M5.1  Concepts

The PAS transposition process is based on the following key concepts:
A technical specification is called a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) if it meets certain criteria,  making it suitable for possible processing as an international standard.  These criteria (see clause 6         below) have been established in order to ensure a high level of consensus, quality and proper treatment of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related matters.
Any organisation that has developed and hence owns a PAS which it considers proposing for  transposition into an international standard is called the PAS originator.  There are no fundamental restrictions as to what form the organisation should have, but it should be recognised that constitutional characteristics of the organisation are supposed to reflect the openness of the organisation and the PAS development process.
A PAS originator may apply to JTC 1 for recognition as a Submitter of PASs for transposition. Once approved, the status of a recognised PAS Submitter will remain valid for an initial period of  two  years, with the possibility of further extension (see also clause M6.1.1)
The submission of the PAS must be accompanied by an Explanatory Report generated by the PAS originator.  This report provides all information necessary to support the submission.  In particular, it shall contain statements as to the extent that the PAS criteria are met by the specification.  It should also clearly define the technical concepts used in the PAS.

    It is JTC 1's intention to offer a template for the Explanatory Report.
    The PAS together with the corresponding Explanatory Report is submitted for ballot.

Note to JTC 1: Such ballot is either a Fast Track ballot in case of an IS transposition; or an ISP ballot in case of an ISP transposition, both following normal JTC 1 rules.

M6 PAS Criteria: Overview

JTC 1 has established criteria which serve as a basis for the judgement as to whether a particular organisation can be recognised and whether its specification can be accepted as a candidate for transposition into an international standard.  Such criteria may also be used by potential submitters to determine the level of suitability of their specification for the standardisation process.

JTC 1 considers the primary benefit of these acceptance criteria to be guidance for evaluation and acceptance rather than an absolute pass/fail mechanism.  There are a wide variety of PAS available for consideration as well as a wide variety of needs within the JTC 1 community.

An absolute pass/fail mechanism over such a wide variety of material is unlikely.

What is needed throughout this process is flexibility and good judgement on the part of all concerned.  Rather than provide quantitative measures to evaluate acceptability of a PAS, on a pass/fail basis, the criteria set forth the key topics for consideration and measures for evaluating them in terms of the scope, depth, and thoroughness with which the criteria topics have been considered.

The PAS criteria are broadly classified into two categories and address the following topics:
It should, however, be noted that some of the above criteria, though primarily assigned to one category, may also be relevant for the other.  Please refer to clause M7 for details.

M6.1  The phases of the PAS transposition process

Based on these concepts, the PAS transposition process can be described as below.  It is JTC 1's firm intention to provide full process transparency and the current status of any proposal from its website. 

This will contribute to an open dialogue between a PAS submitter and JTC 1 and its National Bodies which is strongly encouraged.

M6.1.1  Recognition of a PAS Submitter

A PAS originator interested in submitting an existing or forthcoming specification into the transposition process applies to the JTC 1 Secretariat for recognition as a PAS Submitter.  Such application has to be accompanied by an identification of initial PAS(s) which are planned to be submitted, and by statements of the PAS Originator regarding the organisation related criteria (see below).  It will be balloted among JTC 1 National Bodies.  Once approved, the status of a recognised PAS Submitter gives a PAS originator the right to submit specifications into the transposition process for a period of two years with the possibility of further extension (see below).  This status will lapse:
The initiative to submit an application for recognition may come from a PAS originator or from an NB, an SC or a Category A liaison.

Since the ballot among JTC 1 National Bodies will take three months, it is recommended that the application for recognition be submitted in time before the planned first submission of a PAS.  While there are no particular requirements as to the format of the application, it is requested
Note: The rules for this recognition ballot are set in accordance with the JTC 1 Directives.  In particular, the majority required for a recognition ballot to pass is the same as required for an A-liaison request to JTC 1.  In effect, the ballot result is a straight yes/no decision; no ballot resolution process will be invoked.  However, in the case of a negative result, the applicant may re-apply.  In the case of a positive result, the recognised PAS submitter must respond to all comments received on the ballot within 6 months of close of ballot and not later than the submission of the first PAS.

Six months prior to the expiration of an organisation's status as an approved JTC 1 PAS Submitter , the JTC 1 Secretariat will invite the submitter to review its future intentions as a PAS submitter and consider the following options with regard to its initial application for recognition as a JTC 1 PAS submitter:
If the PAS submitter opts to revise, it must submit a document to the JTC 1 Secretariat stating the changes to the answers to the questions in clause M7.3 from its previous application.  If the PAS submitter opts to reaffirm, it should identify subsequent PAS(s) intended for submission.  In order to allow JTC 1 a timely reaction to the revision or reaffirmation, the necessary documentation should be submitted not later that three months and one week prior to the expiration of its status as a PAS submitter.  JTC 1 Secretariat will issue a three-month letter ballot on the request for either a revision or reaffirmation.  Failure to respond to the Secretariat's invitation for review of PAS submitter status will automatically result in lapse of a PAS submitter's status at the conclusion of its term.

M6.1.2 Submission

Once a PAS originator has been recognised, a PAS submission to the JTC 1 Secretariat may occur within the scope as identified on application (see M6.1.1 above).  This submission has to be accompanied by an Explanatory Report produced by the Submitter, and a statement that the conditions for recognition have not changed or an indication of the nature of changes that have occurred.  The Explanatory Report particularly shall contain statements regarding the document-related criteria (see below).  It should also explicitly mention how the JTC 1 Common Strategic Characteristics (see M4 above) are addressed.

JTC 1 requests all submissions including the Explanatory Report to occur in electronic form.

JTC 1 requests that the first submission will occur not later than six months after the initial recognition.  On request by the PAS originator not later than six weeks before the end of this 6 months period, the period may be extended for another six months, subject to approval by the JTC 1 chair and secretary.  Failure by the PAS originator to submit a specification within the expected period will result in its recognition status to lapse.

The format of the specification submitted is not regulated by JTC 1.  However, PAS Submitters are encouraged to apply, if flexibility still exists, a documentation style close to ISO/IEC's style, as this will ease later alignment at the time of the first review after five years.  Advice on JTC 1's documentation style can be obtained from JTC 1 National Bodies.

The JTC 1 Secretariat, after checking the recognition status of the submitter, will forward the specification together with the Explanatory Report to the ISO/IEC Information Technology Task Force (ITTF) to initiate the appropriate ballot process among the JTC 1 National Bodies.

In view of the importance of the Explanatory Report for a successful transposition, JTC 1 offers its National Bodies, its Subcommittees (SCs) or A-liaison organisations for counsel and advice to PAS originators during the generation of this Report and throughout the whole transposition process.  JTC 1 encourages PAS Submitters to make use of this counsel.  This counselling process could include a review of the submissions.

In the case of interest in receiving this support, PAS Submitters are encouraged to approach any of the organisations whose addresses are given in Annex MA.

Note to JTC 1: The right of JTC 1 National Bodies and organisations in A-liaison to JTC 1 to submit standards from any source into the Fast Track process is not affected.

M6.1.3 Ballot

The ballot on the transposition of a PAS into an international standard follows normal JTC 1 rules: In the case of a transposition into an IS, it is the Fast Track process; in the case of a transposition into an ISP, it is the ISP process.

The PAS Submitter will receive a copy of the ballot document.
Reflecting the importance of the PAS process, the JTC 1 secretariat will inform JTC 1 National Bodies and Liaison Organisations, and those organisations authorised to be PAS submitters, of the initiation of any PAS ballot, the result of the ballot, and the identity of the JTC 1 committee which will be responsible for any future work.

For ballot, JTC 1 National Bodies will receive both the PAS to be transposed and the accompanying Explanatory Report.  During the ballot JTC 1 members may propose changes to the PAS.  These can be resolved with the PAS Submitter after completion of the ballot.

In the case of a failure of the ballot, JTC 1 will make known to the Submitter the reasons which have led to the negative result.  Based on this information, the Submitter may choose to re-submit the specification after modification.

The duration of the ballot is five or seven months (= one month administrative time + four months for an ISP ballot or six months for an IS ballot).  There may be additional time needed to consolidate the ballot results.  A period of five to eleven months is therefore to be expected for this phase.

Note to JTC 1: The ballot follows normal JTC 1 Fast Track rules in the case of an IS transposition, and normal ISP rules in the case of an ISP transposition.  Negative votes by National Bodies have to be accompanied by comments giving the reasoning for the vote.  It is expected that a National Body vote will primarily be based on judgement of the Explanatory Report.  Any additional judgement of the technical content of the PAS is at the National Body's choice.  It is, however, recommended that format /editorial aspects be left out of consideration of National Bodies.

M6.1.4 Publication

Once the specification has been approved by JTC 1 as an IS or ISP, it will be published following ISO and IEC standing copyright policy, i.e.:
The expected duration of this phase is two months.

M6.1.5 Maintenance

For the maintenance of an International Standard of whatever origin normal JTC 1 rules apply.  Such rules distinguish between correction of defects and revisions of or amendments to existing Standards.

Note: The JTC 1 rules for maintenance are found in clause 15 of the JTC 1 Directives.

For the correction of defects, JTC 1 provides for the installation of an editing group.  Active participation of the submitter in such an editing group is expected and strongly encouraged.  Depending on the degree of openness of the PAS submitter, JTC 1 will determine its specific approach.
As for revisions and amendments, it is JTC 1's intention to avoid any divergence between the JTC 1 revision of a transposed PAS and a version published by the originator.  Therefore, JTC 1 invites the submitter to work closely with JTC 1 in revising or amending a transposed PAS.

The submitter is requested to state its willingness for co-operation with JTC 1 for both on-going maintenance and revisions in its application (see M7.3.1).

It is at the discretion of the originator to withdraw the specification from the transposition process at any point prior to publication.  It is also the right of the Submitter to request that the specification remain unchanged throughout the transposition process.  Such request should be clearly stated in the Explanatory Report, and may be an issue in the ballot process.  Changes to the specification during the ballot process are, however, not acceptable as they will lead to confusion.

M7  Detailed PAS Criteria

M7.1 Introduction

There are three key sets of parties involved in the transposition process wherein a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) from a source external to JTC 1 is to be considered as a candidate to become an international standard.  First, there is the body of technical experts responsible for generating the PAS. 

Second, there is usually an organisation under whose auspices the technical experts generate, review, and ultimately approve a PAS document.

Third, there are one, or more, organisational entities within the JTC 1 infrastructure that review and process a candidate PAS for consideration as an international standard.  While there may be more than three parties involved in some instances, these three are considered common to all transposition processes.

It is believed that this set of criteria can be used by all affected organisations and experts throughout the entire process.  That is, some PAS organisational entities may use these criteria to judge for themselves whether a completed document is appropriate to be considered for the transposition process.  Other PAS organisational entities might consider these criteria prior to the generation and approval of a specification that subsequently is to be reviewed by JTC 1 as a PAS candidate.  JTC 1 Subcommittees (SCs) might use these criteria to facilitate a smooth transposition process as they work with potential PAS organisations either prior to or after the generation of a PAS.  Finally, JTC 1 National Bodies might use these criteria to judge about a PAS to become an international standard.

M7.2 Expectations in the Use of These Acceptance Criteria

M7.2.1  Basic Perspective

These PAS Criteria are to be viewed as a checklist of subjects and measures considered useful in both preparing and reviewing a PAS specification.  The list is rather extensive in order to address the wide range of potential PAS expected to be generated and considered for transposition.  It is not anticipated that all criteria will be relevant to every PAS.  Instead a somewhat unique set of criteria are likely to be important for each different PAS.

M7.2.2 Mandatory Elements

Of all the criteria, there are the following Clauses deemed to be essential for consideration of a PAS originator and a PAS for transposition (see also M7.2.5 below):
The wording throughout the Clauses identified above is in terms of "shall" respond.  Hence, failure to respond to any of these Clauses will result in rejection of the application for recognition or of the submitted PAS.  All remaining criteria Clauses are, in effect, optional.  A response is desired but not absolutely necessary.  The mandatory response Clauses have been identified by "(M)" after the clause heading.

M7.2.3 Supplementary Elements

It is intended that the questions asked under each Criteria Category (e.g. "M.7.4.1.2 Clarity", items a, b, and c) are to be viewed as examples of ways in which the basic criteria sub-category might be evaluated.  There may well be other responses to unasked questions that best describe how well a given PAS meets, for example, an acceptable level of "Clarity".  In general, the more complete the PAS Explanatory Report the more the process in JTC 1 National Bodies to judge about a PAS transposition will be eased.

M7.2.4 Rationale for Extensive Criteria List

This rather extensive list of criteria is intended to produce positive benefits for all concerned.

Essential aspects of this rationale are as follows:

M7.2.5  Application of the criteria

When applying for recognition as a PAS Submitter, a PAS Originator shall respond to the following: When submitting a PAS the recognised PAS Submitter shall respond, in the Explanatory Report, to the criteria of clause M7.4.The Explanatory Report shall include both the approved overall scope and the scope of the PAS to be submitted side by side.

M7.3 Organisation Acceptance Criteria

M7.3.1 Co-operative Stance (M)

There should be evidence of a co-operative attitude toward open dialogue, and a stated objective of pursuing standardisation in the JTC 1 arena.  The JTC 1 community will reciprocate in similar ways, and in addition, will recognise the organisation's contribution to international standards.

It is JTC 1's intention to avoid any divergence between the JTC 1 revision of a transposed PAS and a version published by the originator.  Therefore, JTC 1 invites the submitter to work closely with JTC 1 in revising or amending a transposed PAS.

There should be acceptable proposals covering the following categories and topics.

M.7.3.1.1 Commitment to Working Agreement(s)
    a) What working agreements have been provided, how comprehensive are they?
    b) How manageable are the proposed working agreements (e.g. understandable, simple, direct, devoid of legalistic language except where necessary)?
    c) What is the attitude toward creating and using working agreements?

M.7.3.1.2 Ongoing Maintenance

    a) What is the willingness and resource availability to conduct ongoing maintenance, interpretation,  and 5 year revision cycles following JTC 1 approval (see also M6.1.5)?
    b) What level of willingness and resources are available to facilitate specification progression during the transposition process (e.g. technical clarification and normal document editing)?

M.7.3.1.3  Changes during transposition

    a) What are the expectations of the proposer toward technical and editorial changes to the specification during the transposition process?
    b) How flexible is the proposing organisation toward using only portions of the proposed specification or adding supplemental material to it?

M.7.3.1.4 Future Plans

a) What are the intentions of the proposing organisation toward future additions, extensions, deletions or modifications to the specification?  Under what conditions?  When?  Rationale?
b) What willingness exists to work with JTC 1 on future versions in order to avoid divergence?
Note that the answer to this question is particularly relevant in cases where doubts may exist about the openness of the submitter organisation.
c) What is the scope of the organisation activities relative to specifications similar to but beyond that being proposed?

M7.3.2 Characteristics of the Organisation (M)

The PAS should have originated in a stable body that uses reasonable processes for achieving broad consensus among many parties.  The PAS owner should demonstrate the openness and non-discrimination of the process which is used to establish consensus, and it should declare any ongoing commercial interest in the specification either as an organisation in its own right or by supporting organisations such as revenue from sales or royalties.

M.7.3.2.1  Process and Consensus:

    a) What processes and procedures are used to achieve consensus, by small groups and by the organisation in its entirety?
    b) How easy or difficult is it for interested parties, e.g. business entities, individuals, or government representatives to participate?
    c) What criteria are used to determine "voting" rights in the process of achieving consensus?

M.7.3.2.2 Credibility and Longevity:

    a) What is the extent of and support from (technical commitment) active members of the organisation?
    b) How well is the organisation recognised by the interested/affected industry?
    c) How long has the organisation been functional (beyond the initial establishment period) and what are the future expectations for continued existence?
    d) What sort of legal business entity is the organisation operating under?

M7.3.3 Intellectual Property Rights: (M)

The organisation is requested to make known its position on the items listed below.  In particular, there shall be a written statement of willingness of the organisation and its members, if applicable, to comply with the ISO/IEC patent policy in reference to the PAS under consideration.

Note: Each JTC 1 National Body should investigate and report the legal implications of this section.

M.7.3.3.1 Patents:

    a) How willing are the organisation and its members to meet the ISO/IEC policy on these matters?
    b) What patent rights, covering any item of the proposal, is the PAS owner aware of?
        A.7.3.3.2 Copyrights:
        a) What copyrights have been granted relevant to the subject specification(s)?
        b) What copyrights, including those on implementable code in the specification, is the PAS originator willing to grant?
        c) What conditions, if any, apply (e.g. copyright statements, electronic labels, logos)?

M.7.3.3.3 Distribution Rights:

    a) What distribution rights exist and what are the terms of use?
    b) What degree of flexibility exists relative to modifying distribution rights;  before the transposition process is complete, after transposition completion?
    c) Is dual/multiple publication and/or distribution envisaged, and if so, by whom?

M.7.3.3.4  Trademark Rights:

    a) What trademarks apply to the subject specification?
    b) What are the conditions for use and are they to be transferred to ISO/IEC in part or in their entirety?

M.7.3.3.5  Original Contributions:

    a) What original contributions (outside the above IPR categories) (e.g. documents, plans, research papers, tests, proposals) need consideration in terms of  ownership and recognition?
    b) What financial considerations are there?
    c) What legal considerations are there?

M7.4   Document Related Criteria

M7.4.1 Quality

Within its scope the specification shall completely describe the functionality (in terms of interfaces, protocols, formats, etc) necessary for an implementation of the PAS.  If it is based on a product, it shall include all the functionality necessary to achieve the stated level of compatibility or interoperability in a product independent manner.

M.7.4.1.1 Completeness (M):

    a) How well are all interfaces specified?
    b) How easily can implementation take place without need of additional descriptions?
    c) What proof exists for successful implementations (e.g. availability of test results for media standards)?

M.7.4.1.2 Clarity:

    a) What means are used to provide definitive descriptions beyond straight text?
    b) What tables, figures, and reference materials are used to remove ambiguity?
    c) What contextual material is provided to educate the reader?

M.7.4.1.3 Testability (M)

The extent, use and availability of conformance/interoperability tests or means of implementation verification (e.g. availability of reference material for magnetic media) shall be described, as well as the provisions the specification has for testability.

The specification shall have had sufficient review over an extended time period to characterise it as being stable.

M.7.4.1.4 Stability (M):

    a) How long has the specification existed, unchanged, since some form of verification (e.g. prototype testing, paper analysis, full interoperability tests) has been achieved?
    b) To what extent and for how long have products been implemented using the specification?
    c) What mechanisms are in place to track versions, fixes, and addenda?

M.7.4.1.5 Availability (M):

    a) Where is the specification available (e.g. one source, multinational locations, what types of distributors)?
    b) How long has the specification been available?
    c) Has the distribution been widespread or restricted? (describe situation)
    d) What are the costs associated with specification availability?

M7.4.2 Consensus (M)

The accompanying report shall describe the extent of (inter)national consensus that the document has already achieved.

M.7.4.2.1 Development Consensus:

    a) Describe the process by which the specification was developed.
    b) Describe the process by which the specification was approved.
    c) What "levels" of approval have been obtained?

M.7.4.2.2 Response to User Requirements:

    a) How and when were user requirements considered and utilised?
    b) To what extent have users demonstrated satisfaction?

M.7.4.2.3  Market Acceptance:

    a) How widespread is the market acceptance today? Anticipated?
    b) What evidence is there of market acceptance in the literature?

M.7.4.2.4 Credibility:

    a) What is the extent and use of conformance tests or means of implementation verification?
    b) What provisions does the specification have for testability?

M7.4.3 Alignment

The specification should be aligned with existing JTC 1 standards or ongoing work and thus complement existing standards, architectures and style guides.  Any conflicts with existing standards, architectures and style guides should be made clear and justified.

M.7.4.3.1 Relationship to Existing Standards:

    a) What international standards are closely related to the specification and how?
    b) To what international standards is the proposed specification a natural extension?
    c) How is the specification related to emerging and ongoing JTC 1 projects?

M.7.4.3.2  Adaptability and Migration:

    a) What adaptations (migrations) of either the specification or international standards would improve the relationship between the specification and international standards?
    b) How much flexibility do the proponents of the specification have?
    c) What are the longer-range plans for new/evolving specifications?

M.7.4.3.3  Substitution and Replacement:

    a) What needs exist, if any, to replace an existing international standard? Rationale?
    b) What is the need and feasibility of using only a portion of the specification as an international standard?
    c) What portions, if any, of the specification do not belong in an international standard (e.g. too implementation-specific)?

M.7.4.3.4  Document Format and Style

    a) What plans, if any, exist to conform to JTC 1 document styles?


Foreword   Table of Contents   List of Abbreviations   Index
Chapter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Annex: A B C D E F G H HA HB HD HE  HF HG I J K  L  LA LB M MA  N O