Long-term Actions

  • Work with diverse communities to create clear rules for reviewing whether a standard should be withdrawn.
  • Include technical, legal, social, and disability perspectives when making decisions.
  • Ask key questions, like:
    • Is the standard still being used?
    • Does it still solve an important problem?
    • Who would be most affected if it were removed?
  • Treat withdrawal like a review process: involve the public, especially the people most impacted, to help shape the criteria.
  • Make the process transparent so everyone understands how decisions are made.
  • Document and share the reasoning behind any decision to withdraw a standard.
  • Update the criteria regularly based on feedback and real-world impacts.

Examples

  • Japan – The Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC) JISC uses a multi-criteria review that factors in legal relevance, market use, and social value. If a standard supports accessibility or public safety, it may be retained even if its original technical basis is outdated.
  • Brazil – Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT) ABNT partners with government agencies and civil society to review standards related to housing, accessibility, and education. The decision to retire a standard involves assessing whether it continues to fill a policy or equity gap, even if it’s no longer widely used in industry.

Barriers these actions address

No clear or inclusive process for retiring standards

Why is this a problem?

Standards can be withdrawn without clear rules, public consultation, or timely communication. Decisions may focus mainly on technical reasons, without considering social impact or the needs of affected communities.

Without a transparent and inclusive process, standards may be removed too soon, kept for too long, or withdrawn without people knowing. This can reduce transparency, accountability, and trust in the standards system - especially for people whose rights or access depend on those standards. It can also cause confusion, mistakes, or harm.

Common problems include:

  • No clear or transparent criteria for deciding when a standard is outdated
  • Little or no consultation with affected communities, including D/deaf and D/disabled communities
  • Decisions focused only on technical details, not real-life impact
  • Important protections or accessibility guidance being removed
  • No clear public notice that a standard is being withdrawn
  • People continuing to use an outdated standard without knowing
  • Policies or contracts still referring to a withdrawn standard
  • No clear information about what replaces the standard

Ways to address the barrier

  • Co-develop criteria for withdrawal
  • Create an opportunity for public feedback before withdrawal
  • Offer opportunities to request revisions rather than removal
  • Use clear, accessible, and open language in withdrawal notices