Section 6. The world responds

Abstract

countries that are part of ISO/IEC JTC had the chance to respond to SMI's request. All of the comments from the following 25 countries are provided as well as several required SMI responses. I did not feel that it was particularly valuable to include all of SMI's comments, since in many cases, it was a canned answer, as you'll discover. What is of interest is the focus on trademark issues (which originally surfaced in the Microsoft letter in Section 5) and the dissatisfaction that several countries felt towards the PAS process itself. However, an appreciation of the dilemma in which the national bodies found themselves becomes apparent—they want the Java Technology to standardize, but they are uncomfortable with the methodology and, most of all, with the fact that Sun is the owner of the technology. While Australia strongly supports the international standardization of Java technology, we submit a vote of disapproval with comments, as provided below. However, Australia would be willing to alter its vote if it can be shown that these issues are satisfactorily addressed. Australia requests further information from SMI on its response to the mandatory requirements of Annex B of JTC1 N3582 listed below. While SMI [has] agreed to work with ISO/IEC concerning working agreements, samples of similar agreements with other groups should be provided. Sun: Sun is committed to working with JTC1. Other Member Body comments imply many procedural arrangements that need to be worked out; but once everything is agreed, Sun is committed to carrying out our responsibilities and working with all interested parties. Australia: SMI has stated 'committed to evolving the Java TM platform' ... 'at a pace consistent with market conditions' (JTC1 N4615 Clause 3.1.2). This would suggest that revision would be undertaken at a time suitable to SMI's own market without commitment to the JTC1 required 5-year revision cycle.