FW: IPF Fund Accounting

Lohmeyer, John JLOHMEYE at cosmpdaero.ftcollinsco.ncr.com
Wed Jan 17 15:41:00 PST 1996

* From the SCSI Reflector, posted by:
* <"Lohmeyer, John" <JLOHMEYE at cosmpdaero.ftcollinsco.ncr.com>>

I sent the attached message earlier today.  Jean-Paul Emard plans to attend 
the next ITCC meeting where this issue should be addressed.


From: Lohmeyer, John
To: Gibson, Richard
Cc: Rajchel, Lisa; Emard, Jean-Paul; Cummings, Roger
Subject: IPF Fund Accounting
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 1996 3:25PM

Accredited Standards Committee*
X3, Information Technology
                                                Doc. No.: X3T10/96-013
                                                    Date: January 17, 1996
                                               Ref. Doc.:
                                                Reply to: Mr. John Lohmeyer
                                                          Symbios Logic Inc.
                                                          1635 Aeroplaza Dr.
                                                          Colo Spgs, CO 
                                                          (719) 573-3362

Richard Gibson, Chairman ITCC
AT&T, 5A211
900 Route 202/206
Bedminster, NJ 07921
908-234-3795 Fax: X8681
rbgibson at attmail.com

Dear Dick,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the IPF.  It is helpful.
However, the members of X3T10 are still not satisfied that the fund is being
collected and spent in a fair manner.  It would be most helpful if you could
provide more detailed information regarding IPF fund.

At the X3T10 meeting on January 11, 1996, a motion "that X3T10 endorse the
same proposal as endorsed by X3T11 as reflected in 96-119r0" (attached) 
20:3:17:11=51.  I should point out that the referenced proposal was not
actually endorsed by X3T11 -- consideration was deferred by X3T11 until 
February 7, 1996 meeting.  And I should further point out that due to time
constraints, I did not allow X3T10 time to wordsmith the proposal; it was an
up-or-down vote.  Had I allowed this time, I suspect the proposal would have
been toned down and many of the abstentions would have been converted to

I am concerned that this fairness issue is detracting from our ability to do
business.  Some X3T10 and X3T11 members have suggested radical alternatives 
dropping all international work or dropping out of X3 and submitting
international standards through other channels (e.g., ECMA or JIS).  We also
have people who are voting no on all international business until something 
done to resolve the IPF issue.

I would appreciate it if you would consider this issue again at your 
ITCC meeting.  I would also appreciate any more detailed documentation on 
sources and distribution of the IPF funds.

Thank you,

John Lohmeyer, Chair X3T10

cc:   Roger Cummings, Chair X3T11
      Jean-Paul Emard, Director X3 Secretariat
      Lisa Rajchel, Secretary of ITCC

Attachment: X3T10/96-119 r0

 *Operating under the procedures of The American National Standards 
         X3 Secretariat, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
           1250 Eye Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005-3922
    Email: x3sec at itic.nw.dc.us  Telephone: 202-737-8888  FAX: 202-638-4922

                                                             X3T10/96-119 r0
          To:  X3T10 Members
     Subject:  ANSI International Participation Fee Levy

At the San Diego plenary meeting of X3T11 in December, the members discussed 

the levying of IPFs (International Participation Fees), and what actions to
take concerning their unfair nature. The proposal considered covered several 

scenarios, because companies have different ways of handling invoices.

The discussion started when the suggestion Bob Snively made in Palm Springs
of establishing an escrow for IPFs was discussed. The concept was greeted
well by the members because X3 and ANSI have refused to change the program
despite extensive discussions with Roger Cummings and John Lohmeyer.

Since much of the reluctance is due to loss of revenue concerns, it was felt 

that several thousand dollars deposited to an escrow account would be an
inducement for X3 and ANSI to respond to member concerns.

There is a strong feeling amongst the members that X3T* committees are being 

used as a revenue source to fund ANSI's international activities on behalf
of other committees.

Gary Stephens drafted the following principles based on X3T11 input as to
how members may want to proceed as individuals with regard to fees.

 1. Payment of Fees to X3 Secretariat

   a) Members involved in only one X3 committee pay only the X3 fees portion 

      of their bill and exclude the IPF fee, accompany the bill with a
      letter explaining that non-payment of the IPF based on supporting the
      principle of a single IPF per individual participating in X3.
   b) Members involved in more than one X3 committee pay only the X3 fees
      portion of their bill and exclude the IPF fees, and accompany the
      payment with a letter explaining that non-payment of the IPF based on
      supporting the principle of a single IPF per individual participating
      in X3.
   c) Members who are involved in one or more X3 committees but have paid
      all the fees already (or work for companies which will not make
      partial payments) send X3 a letter expressing support for the
      principle of a single IPF per individual participating in X3.

2. Payment of Fees to an Escrow Account

   a) Members who have paid X3 fees to the Secretariat pay one IPF amount
      into an Escrow account pending successful resolution of discussions
      with X3 related to the IPF.
   b) Members pay all their fees for X3 to the Escrow account, and the X3
      fees are forwarded to the Secretariat. This simplifies invoice
      payments in some companies, but requires that members who want to do
      so contact Dal Allan to obtain an Invoice from the Escrow account.

3. Should any portion of the IPF amounts in escrow not be paid to the X3
   Secretariat, the X3T* committees will propose where and when to spend the 

   funds including any accumulated interest.

Members who had already paid their fees or were in the process of doing so
were encouraged to write a letter expressing their dissatisfaction with the
IPF. A sample letter was distributed over the reflectors.

There was extensive discussion on what it is that the members want to see as 

an outcome of this effort to draw attention to the inequity of the present
situation ($300/committee is small compared to T&E costs of participation
but there are important principles involved). The following represents what
X3T11 members consider an acceptable resolution.

Successful Resolution

   a) Members are supplied with budget information indicating the sum of
      IPFs collected, and the use of the IPF funds.
   b) Members receive information about the basis for collection of fees
      from other Accredited Standards Committees and the relative scale of
      the sums involved.
   c) Justification as to why editors are required to create two differently 

      formatted standards, one for ANSI and the other for ISO (ANSI agreed
      to adopt the ISO format years ago, but has produced its own unique
      style despite this).
   d) X3T* members will approve any final resolution. If the final
      resolution should be to pay the IPF fees, any funds held in escrow
      will be forwarded to X3 along with an accounting of who paid the IPFs. 

The drop dead date for payment of fees is March 1. Since X3T11 has a plenary 

in February, formal action on establishing an escrow is to be delayed until
X3 and ANSI have an opportunity to respond.

X3T10 has to make a decision in January plenary with regard to the level of
support for the X3T11 recommendations.

It is hoped that John and Roger will have an update on the reaction by X3
and ANSI which may prove more useful than the written response sent to Dal
Allan. This letter stated that ANSI decided long ago to levy the IPF by
American committee participation and no change would be considered.

When X3T13 forms in January, all members who also belong to X3T10 will find
themselves billed for IPFs. X3T13 can decide not to participate in ISO
activities and thereby avoid the IPF levy. Roger Cummings is to investigate
what is involved in X3T11 withdrawing from ISO SC23/WG 4 activity.

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sample letter to:   X3 Secretariat          202-638-4922Fx
                    ITI Council
                    1250 Eye St #200
                    Washington  DC 20005

   All the interface projects in X3T10, X3T11, X3T12 and the soon to be
   formed X3T13 are covered at ISO SC25/WG4. As a member of these
   committees, I am therefore participating in only one international
   activity i.e. ISO SC25/WG4.

   Whether I participate in one or more Accredited Standards Committees does 

   not add anything to the costs incurred by ANSI in its role of JTC/1 to
   ISO activities.

   It is improper to levy X3T* members and Observers on the basis of their
   American standards efforts for a single ISO working group. There is not
   even strong international support for X3T* projects, several proposed as
   New Work Items have failed through lack of support by enough countries.

   The benefits which flow to X3T* from participating in SC25/WG4 are very
   small. The present method of levying fees is an inequitable distribution
   by which funds raised from X3T* IPFs are being used to underwrite ANSI
   support of other standards groups.

   I support the effort by X3T* committee members to restructure the IPF to
   be levied on the basis of one fee per individual per international
   activity they are involved in.

John Lohmeyer             E-Mail:  john.lohmeyer at symbios.com
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