Dear Mike,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to consider this proposal.

Here are my initial thoughts on having ECMA produce the next version of 10646 and then using the fast track process.  I don't mind you summarizing these comments but I would prefer not being quoted.

The speed of adopting ISO standards is a concern.  However, producing a document faster but failing to develop the consensus necessary to obtain approval is not a solution either.  We need (a) good, (b) fast, and (c) consensus.  While it would be very desirable to speed the process, I'm not sure the proposal for a committee of ECMA TC1 developing the next version of 10646 is the only solution or the best solution.

I have several concerns about the proposal:

0.  This appears to be political dynamite.

1.  It is unclear that the ECMA path will be that much faster than WG2.  (What is the likely WG2 schedule?  This was not in the proposal.)

2.  I perceive a loss of US and Unicode influence over the process.  It is unclear that the slightly faster process will be sufficient to balance the loss of influence (actual or perceived).

3.  ECMA is an organization headquartered in Europe.  In the past, its focus in coded-character-set standards has been on the European and Middle-East regions.  Will the Asians feel that they have any influence on the proposed process?  We need a global focus on 10646 and not merely a Western or European view.

4.  It is unclear that ECMA is that much more qualified to produce the next version of 10646 than Unicode, Inc.  Unicode, Inc. would likely covet the position that is being proposed for ECMA.   If Unicode asked to perform this role, it would likely meet with serious opposition.  ECMA has a type 1 liaison that enables it to submit ECMA standards into the ISO fast track process.  Unicode, Inc. cannot submit material for the fast track process.  Unicode, Inc. as Unicode, Inc. needs to be a player in the process.  How much would it cost Unicode, Inc. to join ECMA as a voting member?  As I recall, in 1991 the cost was 360,000 Swiss Francs/year which is about 240,000 USD.

5.  I think that the SC2 ballot failure is a temporary problem better solved in other ways than having ECMA develop the next version of 10646.  I perceive the problem as merely part of the learning curve for the new SC2 Secretariat rather than a failure of the process.  If countries fail to return ballots, ISO has procedures to handle this.  Having ECMA take the responsibility for producing future versions of 10646 is a permanent solution to the temporary difficulties within the SC2 Secretariat.

6.  What other alternatives might speed the process and retain the consensus process within WG2?  For example, why couldn't WG2 meet as often as ECMA proposes and produce a standard faster?  We should identify and explore other alternatives before deciding on one.

I need to leave work soon.  You can call me at home until 21:00 EST at (410) 781-4728.

Best regards,
Ed