Guidance Liaison Organizations

8/10/2019 Guidance Liaison Organizations

1/16

Guidance for ISO liaison organizations

Engaging stakeholders and building consensus


2/16

ISO in br ief

ISO is the International Organizat ion for

Standardizat ion. ISO has a membership

of 163*national standa rds bodies f rom

countr ies large a nd smal l , industr ia l ized,

developing and in trans it ion, in al l regionsof the wor l d. ISOs portfol io of over 18 500*

standards provides busines s, government

and society wit h practical tools for al l three

dimensions of sustaina ble developme nt :

economic, environmental and social .

ISO standards make a po sit ive contr ibut ion

to the wor ld we l ive in. They fac i l i tate trade,

spread knowledge, d is seminate innovative

advances in tec hnology, and share good

management and conformity assessment

practices.

ISO standards provide solut i ons and

achieve benef i ts for almost a l l sectors of

act iv i ty, including agr icul ture, construct ion,

mechanical engineer ing, manufactur ing,

distr ibut ion, transport, medical devices, in-

formation and communication tec hnologies,

the environment, energy, qual i ty manage-

ment, conformity assessment and services.

ISO only develops standards for which there

is a clear market requirement.

The wo rk is carr ied out by ex per ts in the

subject drawn directly from the industr ial,

technical and business sectors that have

identif ied the need for the standard, and

which subsequently put the standard to use.

These exper ts may be joined by ot hers with

relevant knowledge, such as representatives

of government agencies, testing laborato-

ries, consumer associations and academia,

and by international governmental and non-

governmental organizations.

An ISO International Standard represents

a global consensus on the s tate of the art

in the subjec t of that st andard.

*In October 2010.

International Organization for Standardization

1, chemin de la Voie-Creuse

Case postale 56

CH-1211 Genve 20

Switzer land

Tel.+41 22 749 01 11

Fax+41 22 733 34 30

[email protected]

Web www.iso.org


3/16

3Engaging stakeholders for ISO liaison organizations

Contents

Section 1About the ISO Te chn ica l

Management Board Process

Evaluat ion Group (PEG)

5

Secti on 2ISO/TMB PEG Task 2 Why i s

it impor tant ? Why is it being

pursued ?

6

Section 3Pr incip les and guida nce on

stakeholder engagement

and consensus deci sion-making for

ISO l ia ison organizat ions

8

3.1 Stakeholder e ngagementfor approved ISO pro jects

8

3.2 Stakeholder e ngagementand consensus decis ion-making

on ISO work

9

3.3 Par t ic ipat ion at ISO standardsdevelopment meet ings

10

3.4 Estab l ishment a nd operat ionsof in ternal mi r ror committees ( IMCs)

12

Annex APEG Task 2 Input col lect i on

methodology and summary

observat ions

13

Guidance for ISO liaison organizations

Engaging stakeholders and building consensus

Why an owl ?

Why an owl to symbolize the work of the ISO/TMB

Process Evaluation Group ? Because owls have a

reputation for wisdom and seem to have a critical,

evaluative look


4/16


5/16


Section 1About the ISO Technical Management Board Process Evaluation Group (PEG)

In recent years, to be responsive to both

cur ren t and new stakeho lder needs and

to ma in ta in i tse l f as a h igh ly re levan t

In ternat ional Standards developer , ISO

has seen i ts work p rogramme expand and

evo lve in to new s ub ject a reas. Compel l i ng

chal lenges for ISO regard ing i ts standards

deve lopment p rocesses have come wi thth is evo lu t ion , as s takeho lder expecta-

t ions o f the ISO system are chang ing.

As a resu l t , the ISO Te chn ica l Manage-

ment Board ( ISO/TMB) has formed i ts

Process Evaluat ion Group (PEG) to in-

vest igate the responsiveness of the ISO

standards development processes to

these chang ing dynamics. The u l t imate

intent of the PEGs ef for ts i s to safeguard

the outcom es of the ISO syste m and to

promote the ex ist ing va lue, strength andauthor i ty of In ternat ional Standards and

the p rocesses by wh ich they are p ro-

duced. Indeed, the ISO/TMB agreed that

the PEG, in i ts work, m ust uphold the

commi tment o f the ISO system to par t i c i -

pat ion v ia nat ional standards bod ies, as

wel l as through the considerat ion of the

input rece ived f rom l i a i son organ izat ions.

Essential ly t he PEG has two mai n tasks :

Task 1

To review the current s i tuat ion and

consider the possib i l i ty of al ternative

models1) of standards development op-

erat ions and part ic ipat ion in ISO 2) .

Task 2

To examine processes for consensus

decision-making and stakeholder en-

gagement with in nat iona l standards

bodies (NSBs) and l ia ison organiz at ions,

which may impact the credib i l i ty of re-

sult ing ISO standards 3) .

Please note that th is document is a res ult

of the PEGs pursuit of Task 2 above.

1) It is important to note that, in the majority of cases, the exist-

ing ISO model works well, is well defned and is accepted by

stakeholders.

2) It is anticipated that the PEG will provide recommendations to

the ISO/TMB for action on this task by February 2011.

3) It was anticipated that the PEG would provide recommenda-

tions to the ISO/TMB for action on this item by September 2010.


6/16

6 Engaging stakeholders for ISO liaison organizations

Section 2ISO/TMB PEG Task 2 Why is it important ? Why is it being pursued ?

Any discussion of the rat ionale for PEG

Task 2 must begin by recogniz ing the fo l-

lowing importa nt statements made in ISO

governance documents :

ISO members are committed to develop-

ing g lobal ly re levant International Standards

by.. . Organiz ing nat ional input in a t imelyand ef fect ive manner, tak ing into account

a l l re levant inte rests at nat ional leve l...

ISO part ies are committe d to.. . Communi-

cating in a fai r a nd transparent manne r to

int erested par t ies when work on new stand-

ards is in i t iated and subsequent ly on the

progress of the i r development.. .

From the ISO Code of Ethics, 2004

For the ISO work in which they cho ose to

par t ic ipate, ISO members are expected to

organize national consultat ion me chanisms,

according to the ir nat ional needs and pos-

s ib i l i t ies, which prepare national posi t ions

that ref lect a balance of their countrys

nat ional interests...

From the List of Fundamental Principlesof the ISO System, 1999

. ..National bodies have the respons ib i l i ty

of ensur ing that the ir technical standpo int

is establ ished tak ing account of al l inte r-

ests conce rned at nat iona l level . ..

From the ISO/IEC Directiv es, Part 1,Foreword, I tem C on Discipline

In addition, ISO/IEC Guide 59:1994, Code

of good practice for standardizat ion, states

the fol lowing under clause 6.3 :

At international level , nat ional par t ic ipat ion

in the standardizat ion process is organized

under the auspices of the appropr iate na-

t ional standards body which is the memberof the relevant international sta ndards or-

ganizat ion. National members shal l ensure

that their part ic ipat ion ref lects a balance

of nat ional interests in the subject matter

to which the internatio nal standardizat ion

activ i ty re lates.

General ly, ISO processes and national body

engagement have been viewed as success-

fu l to result in ISO sta ndards ref lect ing a

double level of consens us among ma rket

players and experts at the draf t ing stagesof the standards, and amo ng countr ies at

the formal vot ing stages of the standards.

However,recently wit hin some ISO

activ i t ies there have been some con-

cerns expressed regarding the integ-

r i ty of ISO nat ional body processes for

stakeholder engagement and consen-

sus decision making. The cre dibi l i ty

of these nat ion al processes is v i t al to

ensure the credibi l i ty of the result ing

ISO standards an d, ul t imately, of the

ISO brand in the marketplace. I t is im-

portant to rec ognize that the ISO sta ndards

development process is one that is col lec-

t ively owned and imple mented by ISO and

its members in acco rdance with broadly

accepted pr incip les and guidance.

I t is important to consi der that international

and some broadly based regional organiza-

t ions also ma ke active contr ibut ions to the

development of ISO standards as recog-nized l ia isons. Therefore, i f the credibi l i ty

of internal processes of nat ional bod-

ies has an impact on the credibi l i ty


7/16


of ISO standards and ISO i tsel f , th en

in pr inciple, the sam e is true for the

internal processes of organiza t ions in

l ia ison and their input.

I t is for th is reaso n that the PEG has

decided to se ek input f rom ISO nat ional

bod ies and l ia ison organ izat ions on the i r

in ternal processes for stakeholder engage-

ment and consensus decis ion making. T he

process for co l lec t ing input and summar y

observat ions of that input is deta i led in

Annex A to th i s document. Through con-

s iderat ion of th is input, the PEG has devel-

oped the pr inc ip les and gu idance present-

ed in Sect ion 3 of th is document.

The W TO Commit tee on Techn ica l Bar r ie rs

to Trade has estab l ished cer ta in pr inc i -

p les for the development of in ternat ional

standards that shou ld be obse rved when

internat ional standards, gu ides and rec-

ommendat ions are e laborated, to ensure

transparency, openness, impart ia l i t y and

consensus, ef fect ivenes s and re levance,

coherence, and to address the concerns

of develop ing countr ies. The co rrect refer-

ence for the WTO/TBT document prov id ing

these pr inc ip les is Decis ions and Recom-mendat ions Adopted by the WTO Commit-

tee on Technical Barr iers to Trade since

1 January 1995. These pr inc ip les, espe-

c ia l ly in re lat ion to t ranspa rency, open-

ness, impart ia l i ty and consensus, commu-

n icate important ide as that, i f imp lemented

by standards bod ie s, contr ibute to the

cred ib i l i ty of the in ternal proce sses of ISO

nat ional standards bod ies and in ternat ion-

a l l ia ison organ izat ions. Therefore, these

ideas have been incorporated in the de-

ve lopment of the pr inc ip les and gu idancepresented in Sect ion 3 of th is document.

One of the un ique strengths of the ISO

system is the d ivers i t y that ex ists among

NSBs and l ia ison organ izat ions. Such d i-

vers i ty is seen not just in geograph ic loca-

t ion, number of staf f or annual budgets of

the NSBs or l ia ison organ izat ions, but a lso

in the ar ray of approaches they employ

that may be su i tab le to support the i r en-

gagement in ISO standards development.

Di f ference s in approach may occur for

many reasons, and may be based on di f fer-

ing organizat ion operat ional models, stake-

holder dynamics o r avai lable resources.

Embracing and shar ing the range of ef fec-

t ive approaches and good practices enr ich-

es the total ISO proces s, whi le forcing ver y

speci f ic expectat ions on al l part ies may in-hib i t creat iv i ty, innovation and the engage-

ment of impor tant market p layers in ISOs

work. Effect ive and cooperat ive con-

sensus stan dards development must

be bui l t on a foun dation of mutu al

respect and construct ive col laborat ion

among al l part i es engaged. Therefore,

ISO, NSBs and l ia ison organizat ions

benefi t from diversit y of thought and

approach and from mutual respect.

Within the documents deve loped for th is

ISO/TMB PEG task, we hope to str ike a bal-

ance between helpfu l pr incip les and guid-

ance to benef i t the proces ses of NSBs and

l ia isons and recogniz i ng and respecting the

sovereignty of NSBs and l ia ison organiza-

t ions to determine their processes.


8/16


Section 3Principles and guidance on stakeholder engagementand consensus decision-making for ISO liaison organizations

3.1 Stakeholder engagementfor approved ISO projects

This section prov ides pr inc ip les and guid-

ance to enable l ia iso n organizat ions to

assess their level of interest i n approved

new work i tems and a pproved new f ie lds of

act iv i ty in ISO.

Principles

3.1P1 For new ISO projects, the proposerof the in i t iat ive shal l indicate the

range of organizat ions/stakeholder

groups support ing the in i t iat ive,

as wel l as those that, according to

their interests and identi f ied needs

should as a minimum be involved

in i ts development in order to

fac i l i tate the ar rangements of

nat ional consensus bu i ld ing.

3.1P2 Liaison organizations s hould becommitted to informing and seeking

input from a broad ra nge of their

relevant stakeholders on any new

ISO projects once they are approved

by the ISO member bodies .

3.1P3 All relevant stakeholders should begiven equal access to information

and equal opportunity to provide

input.

3.1P4 Liaison organizations should becommitted to basing decisions on

their level of involvement in the

ISO activity on consideration of

the collected input from relevant

stakeholders.

3.1P5 Information on new ISO projectsshould be provided to the l ia ison

organizat ions stakeholders in a

t imely manner and at the ear l iestappropr iate opportunity to al low

al l relevant stakeholders to access

the information, determine their

interest in i t and provide input

ef fect ive ly by any dead l ines.

3.1P6 Liaison organizat ions shouldmake provision for a range of

approaches to support t imely and

effect ive stakeholder engagement

and part ic ipat ion based on the

needs of the stakeholders.

3.1P7 Comments submitted by l ia isonorganizat ion should ref lect

consensus agreement rather than

a compi lat ion of al l comments

expressed with in the l ia ison

organizat ion. Submittal of

redundant or even contradictory

comments shou ld be avoided.

Guidance

To ass ist in achiev ing these pr inciples, the

fol lowing guidance may be hel pfu l :

3.1G1 Liaison organizations s hould conducta consultation wit h al l relevant

stakeholders. This c ould take place

via a s tep-wise approach such as :

1. Identif ication of potential stake-

holders

2. Providing stakeholders with infor-

mation on the approved project

3. Identifying those stakeholderswil l ing to par ticipate in the ISO

work on an ongoing basis

4. Once relevant stakeholders have

been engaged in the process and

have contributed view s, based

on the input received, the l iaison

organization should assess its

support for, and its level of par-

ticipation intere st in, approved

new work items a nd approved

new f ields of activity in ISO.

3.1G2 There are many ways of engagingwith the relevant st akeholders,

both proactively and passively. For


9/16


example, i f your organizat ion has

a Website, detai ls of the approved

project should be placed on the site

and a more targeted ident if ication

can be made via notices in relevant

publications, on-l ine news it ems to

stimulate discussio n, and through

already established sectors within

l iaison organizations. Furthermore,

active outreach and communica tions

to identif ied stakeholders should be

pursued. Stakeholders in need of

funding to support t heir participation

should seek out sources of such

funding.

3.2 Stakeholder engagementand consensus decision-

making on ISO work

This section prov ides pr inc ip les and guid-

ance to support the ef forts by l ia ison

organizat ions related to stakeholder en-

gagement and consensus decision-making

in the development of consensus co mments

on ISO work on an ongoing basis.

Principles

3.2P1 The approach by w hich aliaison organization determines

its consensus comments is

the decision of the liaison

organization.

3.2P2 Liaison organizat ions shouldestabl ish an appropr iate process

to develop consensus comments

on ISO work, as wel l as to

determine the l ia ison organizat ionsrepresentat ion at ISO meetings. I t

is recommended that internal mirror

committees ( IMCs) are formed

whenever possib le, but some

l iaison organizat ions may determine

their consensus comments by

other means. Some l ia isons may

already have an internal committee

in a f ie ld where new international

projects are started and the l ia ison

should use these exist ing structures

in i ts part ic ipat ion in ISO work.

3.2P3 Differences in approaches maybe based on differing operational

models, dynamics or available

resources. Regardless of the

specific approach used, what

is vital is that the development

of the consensus comments is

informed by and responsive to theinput collected from the relevant

stakeholders.

3.2P4 A descr ipt ion of how the l ia isonorganizat ion determines i ts

consensus comments should

be publ ic ly avai lable to al l i ts

stakeholders or made avai lable to

them upon request.

3.2P5 I t is t he responsib i l i ty of the l ia isonorganizat ion to arr ive at consensus

comments that ref lect and reconci le

the views of the range of i ts

stakeholders that have a legit imate

interest in the ISO subject.

3.2P6 Decisions on the comments ofl ia ison organizat ions should be

taken based on the consensus

pr incip le, and such decisions

should carefu l ly consider the

balance of interests across the

input col lected f rom relevant

stakeholders.

3.2P7 All relevant stakeholders shouldhave equal access to participation

in the liaison organizations process

for development of positions, and

all stakeholders formally engaged

in the liaison organizations

process should be assured of

fair and equitable treatment and

consideration in that process.

3.2P8 When consensus is reached

among stakeholders with in thel ia ison organizat ion on technical

content issues on the ISO work,

i t is expected that the l ia ison

organizat ion wi l l s ubmit the

stakeholder consensus posit ion

and technical comments to ISO in

accordance with i ts establ ished

procedures. It is recognized that on

occasion a l ia ison organizat ion may

need to make editor ial revisions for

pol i t ical or legal reasons.

3.2P9 Comments submitted by thel ia ison organizat ion should ref lect

consensus agreement rather than


10/16


a compi lat ion of al l comments

expressed at the organizat ional

level . Submittal of redundant or

even contradictory comments

shou ld be avoided.

3.2P10 When consensus is reached with ina l ia ison organizat ion on comments

on ISO work, al l relevant

stakeholders should respect

and support those consensus

comments with in ISO activ i t ies and

at ISO meetings, and they should

not express views with in the ISO

activ i ty that may l imit the success

of the consensus comments.

3.2P11 Where consensus cannot bereached and a fundamental

object ion cannot be overcome,

i t is important that the l ia ison

organizat ion have a procedure for

dispute resolut ion or appeals.

3.2P12 A descr ipt ion of how thestakeholder engagement

wi l l be conducted by the

l ia ison organizat ion should be

communicated to ISO.

3.2P13 ISO committees and their leaders,NSBs and l ia ison organizat ions and

their delegates and experts should

respect the consensus posit ions

and comments submitted by NSBs

and l ia isons.

3.2P14 Liaison organizat ions shouldper iodical ly assess their processes

and procedures for stakeholder

engagement and consensus-

decision making on ISO work, and

seek to continual ly improve them

as necessary.

Guidance

To assis t in ach ievi ng these pr incip le s, the fo l-

lowing guidance may be helpful :

3.2G1 Consensus is defined in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1as : General

agreement, characterized by the

absence of sustained opposition to

substantial issues by any important

part of the concerned interests andby a process that involves seeking

to take into account the views of all

parties concerned and to reconcile

any conflicting arguments. Consensus

need not imply unanimity.

3.2G2 When consensus on commentshas been established, it is good

practice for the liaison organizationto communicate these consensus

comments to all relevant stakeholders

that have been engaged in its

development.

3.2G3 Liaison organizations have anobligation to address and make

an effort to resolve all views

expressed.

3.2G4 Liaison organizations may organizemeetings, teleconferences or Web-

based discussions to assist in thedevelopment of consensus comments.

Al l re levant stakeholders shou ld have

an equal opportunity to participate.

3.2G5 Achievement of consensus entailsrecognizing the wider in terest

and sometimes making certain

compromises. Arguments for

and against the existence of an

ISO project should be pursued

at the stage where the project

proposal is considered and action

is taken on it. However, once an

ISO project has been approved,

all liaison organizations and their

stakeholders involved in the

process should be committed to

advancing the global relevance of

International Standard(s) within

the agreed-upon scope, and

they should not seek to hinder

its further development. Where

a liaison organization sustains

a fundamental objection and

supports it with sound arguments,

these concerns will be taken

seriously.

3.3 Participation at ISO standardsdevelopment meetings

Th is se ct ion prov ides pr incip les and gu idanc e

on selecting and preparing (1) l iaison organi-

zation delegation members to attend meetings

of ISO technical committees, project com-mittees and subcommi ttees, and (2) l iaison

organization experts to at tend ISO working

group meetings.


11/16


Principles

3.3P1 Delegations and expertsare appointed by the l ia ison

organizat ion, in some cases th is

wi l l be staf f members and in others,the organizat ion members.

3.3P2 All re levant and intere stedstakeholders who are members

of the liaison organization

should be afforded fair and

equitable consideration to

serve as a liaison organization

delegate or expert.

3.3P3 The l ia ison organizat ion delegationshould be able to represent al l

aspects of the agreed consensuscomments. This might entai l having

more than one delegate attend t he

ISO meeting.

3.3P4 All members of a liaisonorganization delegation to an

ISO TC/PC/SC meeting should

be expected to speak with

one voice to advocate for the

liaison organizations consensus

comments.

3.3P5 Experts to an ISO WG shouldbe selected on the basis of their

relevant technical expert ise.

Guidance

To assist in achieving these pr inc ip les, the

fol lowing guidance may be helpfu l :

3.3G1 Delegations and experts should beselected from the members of the

l iaison organization and be actively

engaged in the work of the l iaisonorganization.

3.3G2 The selection criteria may be basedon a number of factors, for example

technical expertise, effective

communication ski l ls in the language

of the meeting, and meeting

location.

3.3G3 Experts should be nominatedand selected through the l ia ison

organization. Though select ed for

their individual technica l knowledgeand expertise, such e xperts should

be aware of the views of the

stakeholders in order to m inimize

confl ict as the project progresses.

WG experts should regularly report

to their l iaison organization on the

progress of work within the WG.

3.3G4 Where applicable, liaisonorganizations may wish to fund

the participation of their experts

via fund-raising programmes or

events to promote the activity. All

delegation or WG experts with a

financial need should have fair

and equitable access to, and

consideration for, such funding.

3.3G5 Members of delegations and WGexperts should have suff icient

language ski l ls to effectivelycommunicate in the environment of

the particular ISO committee or WG.

3.3G6 Preparation of delegations andexperts before meetings should

include :

a) A brief ing by the l ia ison org aniza-

tion on consensus comments (this

may occur via a physical meeting,

a teleconference or a Web-based

discussion)

b) Formal or informal training on ISOrules and procedures (e.g. ISO/

IEC Directives)

c) Access to documentation, meet-

ing minutes and any papers that

are relevant to the technical sub-

ject and meet ing.

3.3G7 Delegations and expert s shouldmaintain close co mmunication,

which should include a debrief ing by

the delegation members or experts

to the l iaison organization fol lowing

the international meeting.

3.3G8 Liaison organizations should providetheir delegates a nd experts with

guidance concerning how much

negotiating f lexibi l i ty t hey have

regarding their consensus comments

at an ISO TC, SC or WG meeting. In

addition, l iaison organizations should

advise the delegates and expert s as

to their positions and negotiating

f lexibi l i ty in relation to positions and

comments of other NSBs and l iaison

organizations.


12/16


3.4 Establishment and operationsof internal mirror committees(IMCs)

This section prov ides pr inc ip les and guid-ance to l ia iso n organizat ions on IMCs to

ISO work, for l ia ison orga nizat ions that

choose to use a n IMC approach.

Principles

3.4P1 Internal procedures for theestablishment and operations of

imcs should exist and should be

publicly available.

3.4P2 Some l iaison organizat ions mayalready have internal committee s

in a f ield where new int ernational

projects are started and the l iaison

organization should use a n existing

committee in a capacity a s an IMC

if it is interested in serving in such

a capacity and a ble to fulf i l l the

requirements of such a role.

3.4P3 For those l iaison organizationsthat form IMCs, an IMC should be

established as early as poss ible in

the process to ens ure that l iaison isin a position to respond to the ISO

process.

3.4P4 The l iaison organization shouldmake every effort to identify the

relevant stakeholders that should be

engaged in the IMC.

3.4P5 The composition of the IMCshould demonstrate participat ion

of representative organizat ions

across the relevant st akeholders

with a legitimat e interest in the ISOsubject.

3.4P6 Attempts should be made toachieve balance with respect to the

composition of the IMC. Procedures

should exist to safeguard against

dominance by any stakeholder or

stakeholder category

3.4P7 Al l members of the IMC should ha veequal participation r ights and equal

access to relevant information.

3.4P8 Once the IMC has been established,the composition of the committe e

should be reviewed regularly and

additional stakeholders may be

invited to participate throughout the

l i fe-cycle of the ISO work.

3.4P9 Liaison organizations should provide

suitable information, advice ortraining on ISO standardization to al l

members of the IMC.

3.4P10 IMCS should maintain inter nalrecords of their decisions.

Guidance

To ass ist in achiev ing these pr inciples, the

fol lowing guidance may be hel pfu l :

3.4G1 Relevant stakeholders should be

contacted and invited to participatewil l depend on the subject matter

of the ISO activity. Examples of

how this may be approached may

include enquir ies, Internet searches,

networks, personal approaches,

advertisements, etc.

3.4G2 For the purposes of openness andtransparency, the procedure for

the establishment of an IMC should

be made publicly available (e.g.

Through the liaison organization

Website, presentations, experts

communicating within the

community, etc.)

3.4G3 The consensus developmentprocess of liaison organizations

and imcs should be open to all who

are directly and materially affected

by the standardization activity in

question. There should be no undue

financial barriers to participation.

If a fee for participation is charged,

then it should be reasonable andfair. A fee waiver or fee reduction

option is encouraged. Where

potential funding sources for

participating (underrepresented)

stakeholders are known, such

information should be made

available as appropriate.

3.4G4 IMC members should be encouragedto develop their knowledge of

standardization operations and

procedures. This could be achievedvia introductory information packages,

training and education sessions,

mentoring programs, IT tools, etc.


13/16


Annex APEG Task 2 Input collection methodology and summary observations

To co l lect input for considerat ion to pro-

duce Section 3 of th is document, the ISO

Secretary-General issued a letter to a

selected group of approximatel y 100 or-

ganizat ions in l ia is on with a broad var iety

of ISO committee s, invi t ing them to submit

their input on a ser ies of ques tions via an

onl ine survey tool. Responses were re-ceived f rom 29 l ia ison orga nizat ions. This

was regarded as a very good survey re-

sponse, and in par t icular, i t should be not-

ed that the responses showed a ver y good

distr ibut ion of organizat ion size, stakehold-

er category focus, and ISO subject areas.

The numbered i tems presented below rep-

resent the questions a sked of the l ia ison

organizat ions, and fol lowing eac h question

are the PEGs summary obser vat ions on the

responses received.

1) Ini t iat ion of new ISO work

1.1) When ISO embarks on a new f ie ld ofstandardizat ion, how does your or-

ganizat ion ass ess the level of interest

in and support for th is ISO activ i ty ?

Summary observat ions :

General ly, most l ia isons are responding to

work in a n iche area of ISO standardiza-

t ions and few have ver y broad scopes thatwould cross many of the subjects ad-

dressed by ISO. Therefore, level of i nterest

or support for new ISO activ i t y wi l l depend

on whether the subje ct is relevant to the

scope of the l ia ison organizat ion.

2) Establ ishment of internal l ia isonorganization mechanisms to ad-

dress ISO standards activi t ies

2.1) Do you have an internal procedure todevelop your organizat ions input to

ISO standards a ctiv i t ies ?


Eighteen l ia isons re sponded that they have

such a procedure and e ight responded that

they do not.

2.2) I f yes, p lease provide det ai ls of theprocedure.


While in some cases l ia ison organizat ions

may form inte rnal commit tees in re lat ion

to ISO committees, others si mply circulate

re levant ISO documents to al l members of

the l ia ison organizat ion, and a staf f person

from the l ia ison organizat io n coordinates

communications and their inputs.

2.3) Please advise i f , and how, th is proce-dure is made publ ic ly avai lable.


Most responses f rom l ia is on organizat ions

stated that they do not make such proce-

dures publ ic ly avai lable, but they are avai l-

able to the i r members/p ar t ic ipants.

3) Internal organizat ional membershipparticipation in relation to ISO

standards activi t ies

3.1) Do you have a procedure for theidenti f icat ion of stakeholders and bal-

ance of part ic ipat ion in your organi-

zat ion in relat ion to ISO st andards

activ i t ies ?


Nine l ia ison organiz at ions responded that

they have such a procedure, but 16 re-

sponded that they do not. It is impor tant to

note that a number of l ia ison organizat ions

responded that they do not fee l they must

engage stakeholders and balance concernsbecause the i r membership only comes f rom

one stakeholde r categor y.


14/16


The PEGs observat ion is t hat whi le i t may

be t rue that engagement and balance across

stakeholder categor ies is not re levant for a l l l i -

a ison organizat ions, proper broad engagement

and balance wi th in the stakeholder category

re levant to the l ia ison organizat ion is very im-por tant. For example, an internat ional industry

organizat ion should ensure that e ngagement

and balance ex ists across large, medium and

smal l companies and across industry sectors

re levant to the organizat ion. An NGO should

ensure i t represe nts a broad engagement and

balance, for example, of developed and devel-

oping countr ies as wel l as broad geog raphical

diversity.

3.2) I f you do not have such procedures,

how do you determine which stakehold-ers wi l l be involved ?


The major i ty of l ia ison organizat ions respond-

ing indicated that they wi l l provide informat ion

on the ISO activ i ty broadly to their membe rs

to determine who may l ike to be involved.

3.3) Do your procedures al low for new stake-holders to become eng aged at any

t ime ?


Nineteen l ia iso n organizat ions responded that

their procedures al low new stakeholders to

become engaged at any t ime, whi le only three

responded that the i r procedures do not sup-

por t th is.

3.4) Please descr ibe any special resourcesor approaches that support the part ic i-

pation of persons in part icular stake-

holder groups in the decisio n-makingrelated to ISO standards activ i t ies.


Most l ia ison organiz at ions responded that they

provide no special suppor t or programs that

suppor t par t ic ipat ion. A number of responses

indicated that l ia ison organizat ion staf f is

made ava i lable provide to suppor t. In a ve ry

smal l number of cases some funding may be

avai lable for persons to par t ic ipate. Ve ry l i t t le,

i f any, response was provided on tra in ing or

or ientat ion programs for par t ic ipants.

3.5) How do you address the c omposit ionof bodies deal ing with ISO standards

activ i t ies in ca ses where there is l imi ted

but strong interest in your c ountry in the

outcome of an International Standard ?


As th is quest ion was not correct ly draf ted to

apply to l ia ison organizat ions (s ee the words

in your country above), almost al l l ia ison or-

ganizat ions responding did not fee l the ques-

t ion was relevant to them.

4) Addressing dif fering ISO technicalsubjects in your internal consensus

bodies related to ISO standardsactivi t ies

4.1) Do you approach the es tabl ishment a ndmembership of your bodies di f ferently

dependent upon the subject area ?


In response to th is que stion, 11 l ia ison organi-

zat ions responded in the af f i rmative, and 13

responded in the negative.

4.2) I f yes, p lease provide detai ls.


In response, most l ia ison organizat ions did

not indicate a speci f ic procedure, or indicated

that because of their spec i f ic n iche interest,

they do not address mult ip le subject areas.

5) Decision-making in your internalconsensus bodies related

to ISO standards activi t ies

5.1) Please descr ibe how you take dec isions(e.g., by consensus, by voting, require -

ments to take decisions) in bodies deal-

ing with ISO standards activ i t ies.


Most responses indicated use of the conse n-

sus pr inc ip le to take decis ions.

5.2) Please descr ibe w hat happens with insuch bodies i f agreem ent cannot be

reached on a decision.


15/16



Liaison organizat i on responses var i ed widely,

inc luding tak ing no posi t ion, implement ing a

voting procedure i f conse nsus is not clear or

in quest ion, refer r ing the decis ion to a h igher

author i ty or senior staf f wi th in the l ia ison or-

ganizat ion, or they did not regard the question

as re levant to the i r organizat ion.

5.3) Please descr ibe any procedures for ap-peals of decisions ta ken by such bodies

related to ISO standards activ i t ies.


Almost al l l ia ison organizat ions responding

indicated that they have no appeals procedure

or regarded the que stion as not relevant totheir organizat ion.

6) Participation at ISO standardsdevelopment meetings

6.1) Please descr ibe how you select and ap-prove your delegation members to meet-

ings of ISO technical committee s (TCs),

project committees (PCs) and subcom-

mittees (SCs), and your exper ts to ISO

working group (WG)s.


A var iety of approaches were indicated in-

cluding l ia ison organizat i on staf f decid ing,

or l ia ison organizat ion staf f serving in these

roles rather than member vo lunteers. In some

cases, a ca l l for volunteers wi l l be issued. In

many cases, exper t knowledge of the ISO sub-

ject area is an impor tant considerat ion.

6.2) Please desc r ibe how you prepare your

delegation me mbers to meetings of ISOTC s, PCs, SCs.

6.3) Please desc r ibe how you prepare yourexperts to meetings of ISO WGs.


The responses f rom l ia ison organizat ions to

questions 6.2 and 6.3 var ied widely. Some

stated that they made ISO documents avai l-

able, whi le other indicated that they held

meetings in advance of ISO meetings to pre-

pare the i r de legates and exper ts. St i l l others

indicated that they re ly on the i r members a lso

be ing engaged in ISO NSB mirror commit tees

for such preparat ion, and so me indicated they

do no preparat i on at al l .

6.4) Please descr ibe any special resourcesor approaches that support the part ic i-

pation of persons in part icular stake-

holder groups in the international com-

mittee meetings.


Responses to th is question were ver y simi lar

to responses on que stion 3.4 above.

7) Leadership of bodies relatedto ISO standards activi t ies

7.1) Please descr ibe a ny procedures youhave for the select io n and appointment

of chairs and secretar ies of bodies re-

lated to ISO standards activ i t ies.


Responses var ie d widely, f rom no speci f ic

procedures, to very deta i led procedures im-

plemented wi th in the l ia ison organizat ions. In

some cases, i t was indicated that decis ions

were taken by senior staf f of the l ia ison or-ganizat ion. St i l l other responses regarded the

question as not relevant to the operat ions of

the organizat ion.

7.2) Please descr ibe a ny procedures youhave for the qual i f icat ions and respon-

sib i l i t ies of chairs a nd secretar ies of

these bodies.


Most responses f rom the l ia is on organizat ions

indicated that they did not have any speci f ic

procedures, but some did indicate that they

assess the candidates in te rms of the ir lead-

ership ski l l and expe rt knowledg e of the ISO

subject.

7.3) Please descr ibe any programmes or ac-t iv i t ies you have for train ing or prepara-

t ion of the leaders hip of these bodies.


Almost al l responses indicated that the l ia isonorganizat ions had no such programmes or

act iv i t ies.


16/16

International Organization for Standardization

ISO December 2010/3 000 ISBN 978-92-67-10539-0

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pknnair
View:	227 times
Download:	1 times

Guidance Liaison Organizations

Documents