Recent correspondance on the IPF issue

Lohmeyer, John JLOHMEYE at
Wed Jan 17 15:29:00 PST 1996

* From the SCSI Reflector, posted by:
* <"Lohmeyer, John" <JLOHMEYE at>>

At the X3T10 meeting last week, I promised to post some of the recent 
correspondance regarding the International Program Fee (IPF).  The following 
is a letter and attachment sent from Richard Gibson, Chair of ITCC (the ANSI 
committee charged with managing international matters) to Dal Allan:

December 7, 1995
AT&T, 5A211
900 Route 202/206
Bedminster, NJ 07921
908-234-3795 (Fax: X8681
rbgibson at

Mr. I. Dal Allan
14426 Black Walnut Court
Saratoga, CA  95070

Dear Mr. Allan

This is in response to your letter of May 31, 1995 to Ms. Lisa Rajchel
concerning the International Program Fee (IPF).  I have been recently
appointed Chairman of the Information Technology Consultative Committee, the 

ANSI committee which oversees the Information Technology funding program, 
Ms. Rajchel has referred your letter to me for a reply.

I apologize, and take personal responsibility for the delay in providing you 
response.  It is apparent from your letter, as well as a number of other
sources, that there remains considerable confusion over what the IPF 
and how the program is administered.  I have been working with the ITCC to
eliminate this confusion and to achieve a uniform implementation of the
program in all SDOs.  One aspect of this work is the attached document which 

explains the program and how it is implemented.  You will note that this
document is still in a draft state but I expect that the ITCC will approve 
(no doubt with some editing) at their meeting on 12/19.

I hope this document answers the questions raised in your letter.  As you 
note, the program billing is not just focused on TAG groups.  While I
appreciate that the organization of the national work (regardless of how 
international committees it relates to) has an effect on the magnitude of 
fees that are charged to a committee member, this situation is not unique to 

the IPF.  Indeed, it affects most membership billing arrangements I am
familiar with at the SDO level, and affects the dues paid by SDOs to ANSI as 

well.  While technical committees must choose the committee organization 
appropriate to progressing the work, they must also recognize that there are 

financial consequences to such decisions.

The ITCC meeting in July this year discussed in particular the concerns of 
X3T committees with Mr. Cummings, Chairman X3T11.  Mr. Cummings presented 
situation relative to the X3T10, X3T11 and X3T12 committees and, after
considerable discussion, the ITCC reaffirmed that all three committees are
subject to IPF billing.  The ITCC also agreed to investigate possible
alternative billing algorithms for future IPFs.  Mr. Cummings agreed to 
X3T10, X3T11 and X3T12 of these decisions.

I hope this information is helpful in understanding the program and I
apologize again for the delay in getting it to you.  If you have any 
that I can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Richard B. Gibson
Chairman, ITCC

cc:             Lisa Rajchel (Secretary, ITCC)
                Jean Paul Emard (Secretariat, X3)

Attachment:     International Program Fee


Draft: November 30, 1995

The International Program Fee (IPF) mechanism has been in existence since 
and defrays the majority of the costs associated with the Information
Technology (IT) program administered by ANSI.  ANSI operates this program as 
sector specific program for the IT industry, and like other sector specific
activities, ANSI policy requires that the sector involved pays the cost of 
program.  Dues from ANSI members are not used for sector specific programs 
do provide general benefit to all sectors, including IT.

The IT program administered by ANSI is focused primarily on US participation 

in the international committee, ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information Technology.  JTC 
like any standards organization, requires administrative support to 
and distribute documents, arrange and support meetings and prepare meeting 
other administrative reports necessary to keep the work of the technical
committees moving forward.  As is typical for ISO and IEC Technical
Committees, the overall administrative cost is distributed among the ISO/IEC 

central staff (supported by ISO/IEC dues paid by national bodies) and the
national body members of JTC 1 through the mechanism of individual national
bodies volunteering to assume the cost of administering specific committees
(e.g., Sub-Committees - SCs).  This is done by being approved as the
Secretariat for the committee.

In JTC 1, the US holds the Secretariats for JTC 1 itself, four of the 
SCs (6, 11, 18 and 21) as well as several Special Working Groups reporting 
JTC 1.  The cost of this relatively major commitment to JTC 1, about $700K 
1995, reflects the high interest in JTC 1 standards by US industry.  It is 
US share of the cost of administering JTC 1 and includes the cost of US
national administration associated with JTC 1 SCs whose Secretariats are 
by other national bodies.

The management oversight for the IT program is provided by an ANSI Board
committee called the Information Technology Consultative Committee (ITCC).
ITCC has an open membership and members pay dues (currently $15K/year) which 

contribute toward the costs of the IT program.  ITCC is responsible to the
ANSI Board for the financial health of the IT program and works closely with 

the JTC 1 TAG relative to what should be included in the program (e.g., 
Secretariats the US should hold).  ITCC also works closely with US Standards 

Development Organizations (SDOs) that are involved in IT work (currently, 

Several years ago (1992), ITCC decided upon a broad based funding scheme to
collect the money required to fund the IT program.  This was done in
recognition that beyond any specific benefits that accrue to the US by 
of holding a specific Secretariat (e.g., the right to nominate a chairman,
convenient access to the Secretariat, etc.), in a very real sense the 
is supporting the existence of JTC 1, which is of benefit to the entire
industry.  Under this scheme,

each individual (US citizen or not),
who participates in a US standards committee (e.g., as a principal, an
observer, or as an additional alternate beyond the first alternate),
which works on technical program items which relate to items in the JTC 1
technical program,

will be billed an International Program Fee (IPF) of $300 annually.  This
amount is subject to revision by ITCC as the needs of the program vary but 
been constant since the inception of the program.

Thus, all levels of the US standards process are subject to billing, not 
those, such as TAGs, that directly interface with JTC 1.  Also, individuals
who participate at multiple levels in the US process are subject to billing 
each level since each level of the process has benefits associated with it. 
mechanism was put in place to request waivers of the IPF, if warranted, and 
was agreed (ITCC, JTC 1 TAG, and the participating SDOs) that sanctions 
of membership rights, document rights, etc.) would be applied in cases where 

an individual refuses to pay the IPF.

The implementation of the IPF in each SDO varies somewhat because of
differences in each SDO's procedures and the presence/absence of billing
mechanisms for collecting fees local to the SDO.  For example, in committees 

administered by ITI (e.g., X3 and the JTC 1 TAG), TIA (e.g., TR30.2, TR41.8) 

and TAGs administered by IEEE, where there is a defined concept of committee 

membership, the IPF is billed to the committee members annually by ANSI, or 
special arrangements have been made, billed by the sponsoring SDO or its
representative.  In cases such as IEEE committees, where the committees
involved do not have formal concept of membership (e.g., participation is on 
per meeting basis), the committees have determined charging arrangements 
equitably associate the IPF charges to the participants by means of meeting
fees, documentation fees, ballot fees, etc.  These arrangements, while
necessarily statistical in comparison to the committee membership 
are reviewed by ITCC to ensure that they are equitable in light of the 
intent of the program and the arrangements made by other committees.

The costs supported by the IPF are international infrastructure costs.  That 

is, they support the existence and operation of the administrative
infrastructure necessary to support the voluntary international standards
program in JTC 1.  US national committees also have an infrastructure cost
which is supported either by annual fees billed by the sponsoring SDO, by
meeting fees, SDO dues, etc.  The progression of a given technical item of
work typically involves both the national and international committee
structures and both sets of costs (national and international) need to be
supported if the objective of an international standard is to be achieved.
Unfortunately, infrastructure costs, or more precisely the perceived 
|from the services supported by these costs, are typically less visible to 
committees that actually perform the technical work on a given standard than 

to "parent" committees that are more involved with the management of the
standards system.  However, to achieve the goal of a voluntary consensus
standard at the international level (the focus should be on this objective,
not specific committee services), the benefits of the infrastructure extend 
the entire community involved in creating the international standard.

During the first four years of the IPF program there have been a number of
implementation difficulties, not the least of which is achieving a uniform
understanding of the program among the people being billed.  ITCC is 
to addressing the problems that have been identified by the SDOs 
in the program to achieve an equitable implementation that includes all
applicable committees based upon a consistent interpretation of the policies 

that have been defined.  In addition, ANSI is continuing its very positive
efforts to reduce even further the cost of the current program operation 
$1.3M in 1992 to under $700K for 1995).  In recognition of declines in
membership levels in many committees, and the increasing amount of technical 

work on specifications that is being undertaken in consortia, JTC 1, as well 

as several US committees, will need to consider a re-engineering effort to
adapt to the new environment.  This will be done in conjunction with a
continuing review by the JTC 1 TAG of US priorities relative to which JTC 1
Secretariats the US should hold.  Above all, ITCC plans to increase the 
of communication about the IPF program to the broad US community involved in 

JTC 1 work.

Richard B. Gibson
Chairman, ITCC
November, 1995


I have also recently received a response from Jean-Paul Emard to my letter 
(95-047) sent following the November X3T10 meeting.  Jean-Paul's letter 
(96-111) follows:

                                                         X3T10/96-111 r0
Accredited Standards Committee, X3, Information Technology

X3 Secretariat, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
1250 Eye St. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC  20005
Telephone 202-737-8888;  Fax 202-638-4922; Email: x3sec at

Date:           December 28, 1995
Ref. Doc:       X3T10/95-047
Reply to:       Jean-Paul Emard
Phone:          202-626-5740    email: jpemard at
To:             John Lohmeyer
                Chairman, X3T10

From:           Jean-Paul Emard
                Director, X3 Secretariat

Subject:        X3T10 Actions regarding ANSI/ITCC IPF payments and 

                X3 TC membership

Thank you for your letter of November 15th regarding actions taken by 
membership regarding the loss of membership by some of your TC's members for
their failure to pay their 1995 ANSI/ITCC IPF.

First let me say that it was unfortunate that the committee spent so much of
its valuable time on this issue since such an issue is in the purview of the
parent management committee, ASC X3.

The entire question of the IPF, with all of its various issues, has been
aired openly at a number of X3 and JTC 1 TAG meetings dating back to late
1992.  "Demanding an investigation" will not change the actions X3 and the
JTC 1 TAG have given us to carry out.

The sanctions imposed on your nine members were carried out in accordance
with both ASC X3 and JTC 1 TAG votes taken at their meetings held last
February.  Those sanctions as you know are the termination of membership for
any organization not paying their IPF where such an organization met the
criteria for billing and payment of the fee.   The X3/SD-2 does not allow 
TC to refuse the removal of members from its rolls when such action has been
taken at a higher level.  Any votes from any TC, e.g., X3T10, will not be
considered valid if terminated members vote.

Regarding responsiveness to letters, either from entire TCs or individual
members, our office has sought to maintain frequent contact with all of its
volunteers and TC officers, including yours, with regard to the IPF billings
and collections over the years.  Getting no response from the ANSI/ITCC is a
matter that needs to be directed to the ANSI/ITCC Chairman and Secretary.

X3T10 again raises a number of issues that already have been discussed by 
ANSI/ITCC.  The most recent meeting occurring in July and attended by the
Chairman of X3T11, Mr. Roger Cummings and myself, is a case in point.  After
presentations by Mr. Cummings and myself and due deliberation, ANSI/ITCC
rejected the arguments set forth by the X3T* committees, especially with
regard to participation by X3T* in only one international activity
(SC25/WG4).  Such action should have been reported back to your groups by
each of the X3T* Chairmen.

Participants in the X3/JTC 1 TAG standards communities are assessed their 
on a one-time basis ($300 per instance of participation in any TC/TG that 
either a direct international equivalent in JTC 1 or has a project(s) within
the JTC 1 infrastructure).  Other SDOs charge in different ways in order to
reach the $300 per participant IPF fee, the most prevalent being meeting 
for each meeting attended.  In 1996, the X3 Secretariat has gone back to
billing and collecting the ANSI/ITCC IPF as an itemized entry on our overall
membership fee invoice.  We trust that this will avoid the confusion of
"apparent" multiple bills, arriving on different dates.

I fully agree that this imposition of sanctions is not an activity any
officer (or secretariat) likes to carry out.  We both are, however, obliged
to carry our your duties in the manner prescribed in the X3/SD-2.

Again, I would advise you to bring your X3T* concerns before the ANSI/ITCC.
Please contact the Chairman, Richard Gibson, or the Secretary, Lisa Rajchel,
to determine what course of action would be most appropriate.  ANSI/ITCC 
be meeting in New York City sometime early in the new year.

If I can be of any further service to X3T10, please contact me at your
earliest convenience.


I will follow this message with my most-recent letter regarding this 

John Lohmeyer             E-Mail:  john.lohmeyer at
Symbios Logic Inc.         Voice:  719-573-3362
1635 Aeroplaza Dr.           Fax:  719-573-3037
Colo Spgs, CO 80916     SCSI BBS:  719-574-0424 300--14400 baud

More information about the T10 mailing list