Dear Sirs

Thank you for sending me a copy of the above report.  I would like to make further comments to the Commission, relating to pages 80 and 81 of the draft and Draft Recommendation 6.1 (impacting also on Draft Recommendation 6.2).

The second sentence of paragraph 5 on p81 states, "Delegates are nominated for their expertise in the field of activity of the committee and their ability to present the Australian viewpoint effectively (Standards Australia Standardization Guide No. 15, 2006h)."  However, this seems to be contradictory to the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 (5th Edition, 2004), clause 1.7.  The last sentence of this clause states, "National bodies have the responsibility to organize their national input in an efficient and timely manner, taking account of all relevant interests at their national level."  The relevant wording is in the last phrase, "... taking account of all relevant interests at their national level."  

On the other hand, regarding Working Groups, clause 1.11 of the ISO Directives includes the sentence, "A working  group comprises a restricted number of experts individually appointed by the P-members, A-liaisons of the parent committee and D-liaison organizations, brought together to deal with the specific task allocated to the working group. The experts act in a personal capacity and not as the official representative of the P-member or A- or D-liaison organization (see 1.17) by which they have been appointed."

There seems therefore to be a clear distinction within ISO that TC and SC members are appointed to represent their national interests, while WG members are appointed as experts in a personal capacity.  This distinction is not brought out in the Draft Report (or indeed in Standardization Guide No. 15).

On p80 of the draft, the second half of paragraph 2 states, "However, as ISO and IEC require that a single national position be put forward, increasing the size of the delegation will not necessarily enhance the benefits of Australia’s participation."  This is quite correct in respect of ISO TC and SC meetings, but is certainly not correct for WG meetings.  In my own case, for example, TC106 (Dentistry) has over 40 WG meetings scheduled for its annual meeting in September, involving a very diverse range of areas.  Many of these WG meetings are concurrent, and it is clearly not possible for one expert to attend all WG meetings, even if that person was an expert in all areas.  Several experts are therefore essential, which is why countries like the US and Japan will probably have over 50 persons attending.  Even at SC and the TC Plenary meetings, one delegate would not have the technical knowledge to be able to understand and articulate the national interest.

It would be appreciated if the Commission could take these matters into account when writing the final report. 

Yours sincerely

Martin Tyas
Professor Martin J Tyas, BDS, PhD, DDSc, GradDipHlthSc, FADM, FICD, FRACDS, FPFA, FADI