From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 27 2004 - 15:26:03 CST
From: "Peter Kirk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I don't want to go along with Philippe entirely on this, but surely he
> must be right on this last point. Formally, Unicode is effectively the
> agent of just one national body in this decision-making process.
To be honest, Peter, I never said that Unicode was a national body, because
I know that there are several non-US governments that are full members of
Unicode and voting at the UTC, and because I know that the official
representation of US in ISO is ANSI, not the Unicode Consortium.
But it's true that the United States have delegated several times their
official international representation to the Unicode Concertium, acting on
behalf of the US government for some decisions or some limited domains (this
is valid because Unicode is incorporated in US, a necessary condition to
represent the US government in international organizations); this is a
private contractual arrangement between Unicode and the official US
representant, but this does not change the rights of Unicode at ISO.
So the true representant of US in ISO (and also ITU) is certainly not
Unicode, but ANSI, or any other US-incorporated organization that the US
government chooses to represent it (other US private organizations are given
a US mandate for the management of some public resources or standards, like
IANA, ARIN, ICANN, and IEEE, despite these organizations have also
integrated some international voting members)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 27 2004 - 15:27:33 CST