DIS vote analysis
16 February 2010
- ISO member bodies’ vote
- P-members’ vote
- Crossland article on DIS voting results
- Evaluation of D-Liaison organizations’ voices
The five-months voting period ended on 14 February 2010. ISO is to be commended for making the vote results available the day after.
ISO member bodies’ vote
An analysis doesn’t change the results but can give some additional insight, particularly in regard of the overall participation and how a number of countries have changed their attitude in comparison to the CD vote, see the downloadable Excel file.
105 members have voting rights
86 of them participated, that’s only 81,9%
60 voted YES
18 voted NO, that results in
78 votes cast
58,5 YES votes out of 78 make the 75% needed for approval
60 YES votes were given, that’s 76,9% YES and/or 23,1% NO
The negative votes figure at 23,1% is extremely marginal: if only 2 of the 60 YES votes would have been NO votes, this would have changed the approval rate down to 74,4 % and the DIS vote would formally have failed.
Out of the 105 ISO member bodies having voting rights,
84 were registered as P-members active in WG SR (including 6 new ones since May 2009)
56 voted YES
15 voted NO, that results in
71 votes cast
47,3 YES votes out of the 71 make the 66,6% needed for approval
56 YES votes were given, that’s 78,9 %
More details are available on an Excel sheet, which you can download here. The column at the right shows the national attitude, and, if any, also changes from the CD vote.
With this result in mind it is of extreme interest how the WG Leadership will estimate the voices of D-Liaison Organizations and include them into the overall decision on how to proceed:
either opt for a second DIS or go forward directly to the FDIS stage.
Crossland article on DIS voting results
This article gives a short and precise description and is worthwhile reading. Copyright is granted. The Article can also be downloaded in Word format.
Evaluation of D-Liaison organizations’ voices
These Organisations had been encouraged to actively participate in the development of the Guidance Standard. Their comments have been considered as “in general support”, which seems to be correct only formally, i.e. according to the ISO Rules. This way an NGO or any other D-Liaison organization has been given the same weight as e.g. IOE or ICC. A better weighted evaluation of the responses would have given a more realistic picture. The practised handling of the responses leads to the effect that the main user group’s interest (business, industry) have not really been taken into account. This should be kept in mind when ISO 26000 will be reviewed in 2013.