Jurisdictional Scan

Theme 1: Identifying need and proposing a feasible standard

Description

A new standard proposal can come from the Standards Development Organization (SDO), stakeholders (e.g., industry groups), or the user community. The SDO assesses its merits before defining the scope and forming a technical committee. Below are examples from different jurisdictions.

Research questions

How are standard needs identified, and by whom?

How are needs submitted, and is the process clear?

Who assesses feasibility, and how?

Summary

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)² establishes chartered groups representing the interests of Member Organizations and invited experts, which are typically organizations or individuals who have completed the membership application. The W3C uses group charters instead of proposals.
The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG)¹ creates standards through work-streams, which can be proposed by anyone if they meet specific criteria such as implementation by at least two browser engines and a draft living standard. The process for submitting a new standard or feature involves a description of the issue, gathering support, and public discourse, typically on Github. Anyone can create a proposal if they understand the process and meet the necessary criteria.
The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)³ can initiate new work on standards through various methods, including member proposals, proposals from the European Commission or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), external groups like research projects, or recognition by ETSI staff. These proposals require the agreement of four or more ETSI members. ETSI staff may also recognize opportunities and contribute initiatives.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)⁴ requires new standards to align with its global relevance policy. This involves submitting a new work item proposal (NP) to the relevant committee using Form 4 0. A parent committee determines the feasibility of the work and creates a Working Group (WG) consisting of experts and a Convenor/Project leader.
In Japan^21,22,23 the need for standards is identified through various stakeholders, including industry associations, government agencies, consumer groups, and academic institutions. Market analysis is conducted to identify areas where standardization could be beneficial. Proposals for new standards are typically made by organizations like the Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC) or specific industry groups. Technical committees, composed of experts, draft the proposed standards, which are then discussed among stakeholders to gather feedback and ensure relevance. Needs for standards can originate from regulatory changes, technological advancements, and consumer feedback, with industry-specific challenges often driving the demand. Stakeholders can submit requests for new standards or revisions through designated channels, such as the JISC website or respective standardization body platforms. The feasibility of proposed standards is assessed by relevant technical committees, considering factors such as technological readiness, economic impact, and potential benefits to society. The approval process involves discussions and consensus-building among stakeholders, with revisions to the draft standards based on feedback received during consultations.
India’s Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)³⁰ is responsible for identifying and addressing the need for standards. This process involves various stakeholders, including industry associations, government agencies, consumers, and research institutions, who express their requirements for standards based on technological advancements, market requirements, or the need for regulations. Regular market analyses and assessments of existing standards can help identify gaps where new standards are required or existing standards need revisions. BIS has numerous technical committees, including experts from relevant fields, who evaluate and identify needs for new standards. Proposals for new standards can be submitted to BIS through various channels, such as direct communication from stakeholders or recommendations from technical committees. Proposed standards are drafted based on international standards, existing national standards, and inputs from stakeholders. Public review is conducted to gather feedback from a broader audience before finalization. The submission process for new standards can vary, but typically involves stakeholders communicating their needs directly to BIS or through industry associations. The feasibility of developing a new standard is assessed by technical committees, considering technical, economic, and practical aspects. Expert review is conducted by relevant fields against criteria such as practicality, relevance, and alignment with international benchmarks. If feasible, the draft is refined and prepared for approval by the BIS governing body.
In Russia³⁵, the need for standards is identified through various stakeholders, including industry associations, government agencies, academic and research institutions, market analysis, and public and consumer feedback. Once a need is established, proposals for new standards are drafted by technical committees and industry representatives, who then undergo consultation and review to ensure feasibility and relevance. Stakeholders can submit their needs for standards through Rosstandart (Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology) or relevant technical committees, which involves filling out specific forms and providing supporting documentation. Rosstandart provides clear guidelines for submitting needs, which include detailed instructions on formatting submissions and information requirements. The feasibility of proposed standards is assessed by technical committees, which include experts from relevant sectors. This assessment includes determining if the standard can be practically implemented, analyzing the cost implications for industries and consumers, and ensuring compliance with existing regulations and standards.
In South Africa^24,25, the need for standards is often identified through feedback from industries, consumers, and government agencies, as well as market trends and regulatory changes. Technical committees, composed of experts from relevant sectors, draft proposals based on research and stakeholder input. Public consultation is also used to gather wider input. Needs can also be determined from industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and regulatory bodies. Academic and market research can also help identify gaps where standards are necessary. Stakeholders can submit requests for new standards through the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), which has clear guidelines for submission. The feasibility of proposed standards is evaluated by technical committees based on technical, economic, and environmental considerations, and consensus is often reached through discussions among committee members and relevant stakeholders. Further consultation with stakeholders is often required to refine proposals and address potential challenges.
South Korea’s²⁰ process for identifying and determining standards involves market research, industry surveys, and consultations with stakeholders. Regulatory changes and new regulations can also highlight the need for new standards. Technical committees are established to draft feasible standards, involving experts from various industries, academia, and government. Stakeholder input is gathered to ensure the standards are practical and relevant. Needs for standards may come from various sources, such as industry associations, government bodies, research institutions, and consumer feedback. Collaboration processes can be held to identify common needs. The Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS) typically outlines a formal process for submitting standards, which may involve online submissions or direct communication with relevant bodies. The process is generally clear, with guidelines provided to stakeholders. The feasibility of proposed standards is assessed by technical committees and experts, considering practicality, economic implications, and technical requirements. Stakeholder consultation is also crucial to ensure the standards are realistic and implementable.
In China^{32, 33, 34}, the need for standards is often identified through market demand analysis, regulatory frameworks, and feedback from industry stakeholders. Feasible standards are proposed by expert committees, often organized by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), and input is gathered from various stakeholders. Needs can arise from businesses, government agencies, academic institutions, and consumer advocacy groups. Industry feedback is conducted through forums, workshops, and consultations. The formal submission process for standards is outlined by the SAC, which may involve submitting proposals through online platforms or direct communication with relevant bodies. The submission process is generally clear, with specific guidelines provided to stakeholders. The feasibility of proposed standards is assessed by expert committees, considering technical, economic, and practical implications. Stakeholder feedback during the assessment phase is crucial to ensure the proposed standards are implementable and meet the identified needs.
In Europe³⁶, the need for standards is often identified through market analysis, technological advancements, and consultations with industry stakeholders. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) conducts studies to assess market needs, while regulatory requirements can highlight the need for new or updated standards. Technical committees, composed of experts from industry, academia, and government, propose feasible standards. Stakeholder involvement is actively sought to ensure that proposed standards are practical and meet real needs. Needs for standards can originate from various sectors, including industry, consumer advocacy groups, and governmental bodies. In Germany, the Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) receives feedback from industrial sectors regarding specific standardization needs. Public consultations are held by many national standards bodies to gather input from a broader audience. Submitting needs for standards involves a formal submission process, with transparency and clarity available on the national standards body’s website. The feasibility of proposed standards is determined by the same technical committees that develop them, evaluating technical, economic, and practical aspects. Stakeholder feedback is crucial in this stage, ensuring that proposed standards are not only feasible but widely accepted. Examples of countries that have successfully implemented standards include Germany (DIN), the United Kingdom (BSI), France (AFNOR), and the Netherlands (NEN). Each country has its own unique approach to identifying and addressing the need for standards.
The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre (HKSTC)³⁷ and other relevant bodies identify the need for standards through stakeholder engagement, market research, and public consultations. They gather feedback on current practices, technological advancements, and regulatory requirements. Once a need is identified, proposals for new or revised standards are developed, involving input from technical experts and stakeholders. Public consultations allow for wider input from industry and the public before formal adoption. Needs for standards can come from industry associations, government departments, and feedback from users and consumers experiencing challenges with existing standards. Stakeholders can submit their needs for standards through formal channels, such as writing to the HKSTC or relevant regulatory bodies. The process for submitting needs is generally clear, with guidelines provided by the HKSTC. The feasibility of proposed standards is assessed by technical committees or working groups, considering factors such as technology availability, potential benefits to stakeholders, alignment with international standards, and overall impact on public safety and quality.
In South America, national standardization bodies like the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT)³¹ and the Argentine Institute of Standardization and Certification (IRAM) engage with various stakeholders to identify the need for new or revised standards. They use market analysis to monitor trends, technological developments, and regulatory changes to identify areas where new standards are necessary. Once a need is identified, stakeholders collaborate to draft proposals, typically forming technical committees with experts from relevant industries. Public consultation is also conducted to provide feedback before the final standard is adopted. Needs for standards can come from industry associations, government agencies, and consumer advocacy groups. Stakeholders can submit needs for standards through formal channels, such as writing to the national standards body or completing specific forms on their websites. Most national standards organizations provide clear guidelines and procedures for submitting needs, and information is often available online. Feasibility assessments are conducted by technical committees or working groups, evaluating the practicality, technical requirements, and potential economic impacts of proposed standards. Factors considered during these assessments include alignment with existing regulations, benefits to stakeholders, potential implementation costs, and impacts on public health and safety.
Mexico’s Organization for Standardization and Certification (ANCE)³⁸ and the General Directorate of Standards (DGN)³⁹ are key bodies in identifying the need for standards. They engage with industry stakeholders, government agencies, and academic institutions to gather insights on current challenges and emerging needs. Market analysis helps identify areas where new standards may be necessary. Proposed standards are drafted, often involving collaboration among technical committees. Public consultation allows stakeholders and the public to provide feedback before finalization. Needs for standards can arise from industry associations, government agencies, consumer feedback, and advocacy groups. Stakeholders can submit their needs for standards through formal channels, such as contacting ANCE or DGN directly. The process is generally outlined on the websites of ANCE and DGN, with guidelines and templates provided to facilitate submissions. The feasibility of proposed standards is assessed by technical committees, evaluating the practicality, technical requirements, and potential economic impact of implementing the standard. Key factors include alignment with international standards, stakeholder benefits, implementation costs, and overall impacts on public safety and quality.

Theme 2: Consulting and assembling key stakeholders and members for committees

Description

Once a proposal is approved, work can begin on creating a new standard. A technical committee is formed, members are appointed, and a chair is assigned to guide the work.

Research Questions

Who is asked to participate on committees?
Are there any directives or guidance from the accreditation organization, or by the government etc. that restrict who joins a technical committee?
Is there compensation for committee members? If yes, what are the conditions?

Summary

The W3C Advisory Committee (AC)² is appointed after a chartered working group is approved, and a Call for Participation is issued to the AC, which represents every W3C member. A chair is appointed from W3C members, and their roles are summarized in the document. The announcement is made to the membership through a mailing list for the AC, which is not publicly accessible. The chair can invite invited experts, who are non-W3C members, to join the working group. These experts likely come from a network of connections through W3C members. The question remains: where do these experts come from? Are they connected to W3C or not?
ETSI³ is a standards development organization that operates through member organizations, including private companies, research entities, academia, government, and public organizations. Members must meet specific criteria to participate in technical groups, such as representing a member or partner organization, the European Commission, or the European Free Trade Association. Guests authorized by the chair can also participate for a limited period. The European Commission recognizes four organizations representing societal stakeholders in the ETSI standard development process: ANEC (the European consumer voice in standardization) representing consumers, ECOS (the Environmental Coalition on Standards) representing environmental interests, ETUC (the European Trade Union Confederation), and SBS (Small Business Standards), representing small and medium sized enterprises. These organizations are ETSI members and participate in the standards development process with the same rights as other members. Technical groups may hold open sessions for knowledge sharing, promotion, thought leadership, and external stakeholder engagement. Membership fees depend on the organization’s type and size, but members are not compensated for their time by ETSI. ANEC covers travel, accommodation, and subsistence expenses for societal stakeholders, but does not provide salary or honoraria. Regulation (EU) 1025/2012, also known as the Standardisation Regulation, emphasizes the participation of all stakeholders in the standardization process within Europe.
ISO⁴ members are national standards organizations representing each country, with each country having only one representative. Individuals or companies cannot be ISO members. Working groups are established by a parent committee to prepare the Working Draft of a new standard. ISO has a committee on consumer policy (COPOLCO) responsible for consumer representation in standards development, composed of ISO members. The committee organizes training, events, and resources on stakeholder engagement and consumer research.
Technical committees in Japan^21,22,23 consist of experts from various sectors, including industry, academia, government, and consumer organizations, to ensure diverse perspectives in standards development. Members are chosen based on their expertise, experience, and relevance to the specific area of standardization. Government and accreditation often influences the formation of committees, emphasizing inclusivity and balanced representation from different sectors. The Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC) and other relevant bodies provide guidelines for committee formation that affects who is invited to participate. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and JISC also provide documentation outlining the criteria for committee formation. Compensation for committee members may vary depending on the committee’s funding sources, project nature, and whether the work is voluntary or part of a funded initiative.
WHATWG¹ is a non-profit organization that focuses on web technologies, primarily using Github workstreams. These workstreams are open and accessible to anyone, including those who have contributed to them, experts invited by the Steering Group, or organizations working in web technologies. Participants can be individuals, experts, or organizations working in web technologies. To participate, participants must be motivated and interested in the workstreams. Possible barriers to participation include unfamiliarity with Github, the process of working in open source communities, and understanding the work culture.
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)³⁰ in India is responsible for establishing and advising technical committees. Stakeholders are identified based on their expertise, experience, and relevance to the specific area of standardization. BIS invites potential committee members through formal invitations, targeting experts, industry leaders, and organizations known for their contributions. Public announcements may also be issued to encourage participation. The BIS operates under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, which provides guidelines for committee formation, ensuring diverse representation. The government and BIS also emphasize the inclusion of various sectors, such as industry, academia, and consumer, to maintain a balanced perspective in standard development. Sector-specific guidelines may also influence committee composition. Honoraria or compensation may be offered to committee members who contribute significantly to the standard development process, particularly for long-term commitments. Compensation conditions can vary based on the nature of the work, the level of expertise required, and the duration of participation.
In Russia³⁵, technical committees are formed and consulted by various stakeholders, including industry representatives, academics and researchers, and consumer advocacy groups. The consultation process involves public announcements and direct invitations, with subject matter experts, industry leaders, and regulatory officials being invited to participate. Government and accreditation guidance from Rosstandart and relevant bodies outline membership criteria, inclusivity, and documentation for committees. Compensation for committee members is often voluntary, but some may receive honoraria or compensation for their contributions, especially for time-intensive roles. Compensation conditions can vary, including project duration and travel reimbursements. Policies regarding compensation and reimbursement are typically outlined in the guidelines provided to committee members at the outset of their involvement. In summary, technical committees in Russia are formed of various stakeholders, including industry representatives, academics and researchers, and consumer advocacy groups. The process ensures a diverse range of perspectives and ensures transparency in the development of standards.
The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS)^24,25 organizes technical committees with diverse representation from various sectors, including industry experts, academia, government, and consumer groups. The SABS issues open invitations for participation through their website and industry networks. Members of committees include experts and practitioners, such as engineers, quality managers, regulatory officials, and representatives from relevant industries. Organizations and associations related to the standard may also nominate representatives. SABS operates under guidelines that encourage inclusive representation, with directives from the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) or other governmental bodies to determine committee composition. Accreditation standards, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), may also inform committee formation and inclusion. Committee members may receive compensation, which can vary based on the committee type and SABS’s specific terms. Compensation typically covers expenses related to participation, such as travel and accommodation for meetings.
The Standardization Administration of China (SAC)^32,33,34 identifies key stakeholders from various sectors, including industry, academia, government agencies, and consumer groups. Public consultations are conducted to gather input from potential committee members and interested stakeholders before forming committees. Committees typically include representatives from relevant industries, research institutions, governmental bodies, and consumer advocacy groups, with specialized knowledge being invited for technical standards. Government regulations and SAC guidelines outline procedures for forming technical committees, emphasizing balanced representation and diverse stakeholder perspectives. SAC provides guidelines detailing criteria for committee membership, ensuring that selected members have the necessary expertise and represent different interests in the sector. Compensation for committee members can vary, with some members participating voluntarily, while others, particularly those representing companies or organizations, may receive compensation for their time and contributions.
The Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS)²⁰ is responsible for assembling and consulting stakeholders from various sectors, including industry representatives, academia, government officials, and consumer advocacy groups. Public announcements are issued by KATS and relevant standardization organizations to invite interested parties with the necessary expertise to participate in committees. Committees typically include members with diverse backgrounds, such as industry experts, researchers, and consumer group representatives. For specialized standards, experts with specific knowledge in the relevant field are often invited. Government regulations and a framework dictate the selection criteria for committee members, emphasizing balanced representation and the inclusion of various stakeholders. Members may receive compensation for their time and expenses, with specific conditions based on the project and available funding. Some organizations also offer honoraria for members, particularly those from industry or academia who contribute significantly to the standards development process.
National standards bodies (NSBs) in Europe identify and engage stakeholders from various sectors, including industry, academia, government, and consumer groups. They issue public calls for participation when forming committees, such as the British Standards Institution (BSI)⁴⁰. Committees typically include a mix of industry experts, academics, government representatives, and consumer advocates. In some cases, specific technical expertise is required, and stakeholders with relevant qualifications are specifically invited to participate. European Standards Directives and national regulations often dictate the composition of committees, such as those related to safety, environmental standards, and consumer protection. Many countries have specific regulations or guidelines that outline how committees should be formed, such as the Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR)⁴¹ in France. Compensation for committee members can vary by country, with some countries providing stipends or reimbursement for travel expenses, while others rely on volunteer participation. Compensation conditions may be offered only to representatives from industry organizations or those with significant expertise. Examples of committee membership in Europe include the United Kingdom (BSI)⁴⁰, Germany (DIN)⁴², France (AFNOR)⁴¹, and the Netherlands (NEN)⁴³. BSI engages stakeholders through public consultations, while DIN has a well-defined process for assembling committees, often requiring diverse representation from affected sectors. AFNOR follows guidelines to ensure balanced representation in its committees, typically not providing compensation for individual members, but may cover expenses for certain representatives.
The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre (HKSTC)³⁷ and the Hong Kong Productivity Council (HKPC) identify and consult stakeholders from various sectors, including industry, government, academia, and consumer groups, to participate in standard development committees. The consultation process involves invitations to join technical committees based on their expertise, experience, and representation. Participants typically include experts from industries related to the standards being developed, representatives from government departments involved in regulation and compliance, academic professionals with relevant research experience, and consumer representatives and advocacy groups. Accreditation bodies provide guidelines for the composition and functioning of technical committees, ensuring they are balanced and include diverse perspectives. Government influence may also influence committee composition, particularly in heavily regulated sectors or areas of public safety. Committee members typically do not receive compensation for their participation, but may be reimbursed for travel or other necessary costs. Compensation conditions usually follow the organizing body’s guidelines.
The Mexican Organization for Standardization and Certification (ANCE)³⁸ and the General Directorate of Standards (DGN)³⁹ actively identify stakeholders from various sectors, including industry, government, academia, and consumer groups. Stakeholders are invited to participate in committees based on their expertise and relevance to the specific standard being developed. Participants typically include industry experts, government officials, academics, and consumer advocates. Accreditation organizations provide guidelines on the formation and functioning of technical committees, ensuring representativeness and a balance of interests. The Mexican government may set policies that influence committee composition, particularly in sectors where public safety or regulatory compliance are critical. Committee members generally do not receive direct compensation for their participation, but in some cases, they may be reimbursed for specific expenses incurred during meetings or the standard development process. If reimbursement is provided, it typically follows the guidelines established by the organizing body, outlining what expenses are eligible for reimbursement and the process for submitting claims.
In South America, national standardization bodies like ABNT, IRAM, and INMETRO engage stakeholders from various sectors, including industry, government, academia, and consumer advocacy groups. Stakeholders are invited to participate in committees based on their expertise and relevance to the specific standard. Participants typically include representatives from industries related to the standards being developed, government officials from regulatory agencies, academics and researchers, and consumer representatives and advocacy groups. National standardization bodies often have directives and guidelines that outline the composition and functioning of technical committees, ensuring inclusivity and balance in representation. Governments may also issue policies or directives that influence who can join technical committees, especially in heavily regulated sectors or involving public safety. Committee members generally do not receive direct financial compensation for their participation, but some organizations may reimburse them for specific expenses related to their participation. If reimbursement is provided, it typically follows the guidelines established by national standardization bodies, specifying which expenses are eligible for reimbursement and the process for submitting claims.

Description

Once a proposal is accepted, a work plan is established, specifying details such as timelines, wording of the standard’s scope, procedures, policy, and technical committee governance (e.g., how the group decides consensus, in-person vs virtual meetings, time zone coordination etc).

Research questions

What is the process to onboard members, what training / resources are available?
What tools are used?
What accommodations are provided?
How are meetings conducted?
Is there funding for accessibility accommodations, travel, etc?

Summary

W3C² establishes a charter for each working group, defining its scope and policies. However, each group has autonomy, with working group chairs having discretion in their work. Meeting methods vary among groups, but minutes are published according to the W3C process. Technical document development is consensus-driven, with no specific timeline, and each group can have different methods of conducting meetings.
The WHATWG¹ recommends that a workstream publish its first public Review Draft within six months of formation. Each workstream has a repository with contributor guides, code of conduct, and process documentation, with work, contributions, deliberation, and consensus making primarily conducted through Github.
ETSI³ members can join mailing lists, set up onboarding meetings with mentors, and participate in meetings through the ETSI member portal. The editHelp! website houses resources like user guides, guidelines, and document wireframe. ETSI provides document skeletons for various deliverables in MS Word format. However, the member portal and editHelp! area have significant accessibility issues, including missing login form labels and keyboard focus indicators. The portal does not have an accessibility information page and does not cover accessibility on the Help page. Meetings are held in person at ETSI headquarters, an external location, or online. The Meeting Host Guidelines only provide information for in-person meetings and do not include information about accessibility.
ISO⁴ provides resources for creating standards on its website, including an accessibility toolkit for technical committees to determine the relevance of their deliverables in terms of accessibility. However, no information about accessibility in the standards development process is provided. The ISO Help Desk knowledge base offers information about ballots, documents, meetings, and projects. The ISO standards development process relies on various IT tools, but no information about accessibility is provided. ISO offers training for using its electronic applications and members can contact the ISO help desk for support.
In Japan ^21,22,23 the process of establishing and sharing key project details involves documenting these details in project proposals and holding regular updates to ensure transparency. New committee members undergo orientation sessions to understand the committee’s goals, standard development process, and their roles. Training resources, such as handbooks and guidelines from organizations like the Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC) and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), are provided to help members understand their responsibilities and the standardization framework. Collaboration platforms like Google Workspace and Microsoft Teams are used to facilitate communication and document sharing among committee members. Specialized software for managing the development of standards and tracking progress may also be employed. Committees are encouraged to provide accessibility accommodations for members with disabilities and travel accommodations, depending on the organization’s resources. Meetings are structured with an agenda distributed in advance, with a chairperson facilitating discussions. Funding for accessibility and travel may be allocated by larger organizations or government-funded initiatives.
BIS³⁰ is a project management organization in India that establishes and shares key project details through meetings, official communications, and documentation. It provides project briefs, regular updates, and orientation sessions for potential members. New members are invited based on their expertise and relevance to the standard being developed. Training sessions cover topics such as standardization, technical aspects, and best practices in committee work. Members have access to resources such as guidelines, manuals, and research documents. BIS uses online collaboration platforms and document management systems to facilitate communication and document sharing among members. Accessibility and travel accommodations are provided to ensure all members can participate fully. Meetings are conducted regularly, either in person or virtually, depending on the committee’s needs and the project’s timeline. Agendas and minutes are prepared ahead of time, and video conferencing tools are used for remote participation. BIS typically allocates a budget for standard development activities, including funding for accessibility accommodations, travel, and related expenses. Members may be eligible for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred while attending meetings or training sessions, subject to BIS’s policies.
In Russia³⁵, a project committee is established to share key project details, including objectives, scope, and timelines. Information is shared through various channels, including emails, official meetings, and access to relevant documents. Members are formally invited based on their expertise and relevance to the project, and orientation sessions cover the standard development process, roles, and standards being addressed. Training resources are provided, including manuals and guidelines on standardization practices. Collaboration platforms and project management software are used for document sharing and communication among committee members. Accessibility considerations are made to ensure all members can participate fully, including providing materials in accessible formats and accommodating special needs for members with disabilities. Travel arrangements are coordinated for members attending meetings or workshops. Meetings are conducted regularly, either in-person or virtually, depending on the needs and preferences of the committee members. An agenda is prepared in advance, and minutes are recorded and distributed to all members. Rosstandart typically allocates a budget for standard development activities, covering accessibility accommodations and travel expenses. Clear reimbursement policies are in place for travel and other expenses.
The South Africa^24,25 project involves establishing and sharing key project details through project briefs and regular updates. Orientation sessions are conducted for new members to familiarize themselves with the development process. Members are provided with resources, guidelines, and research materials. Collaboration platforms like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and dedicated project management software are used for communication and collaboration. Cloud-based platforms facilitate document sharing among committee members. Accommodations are provided, including materials in accessible formats and meeting venues for individuals with disabilities. Support for participation may be arranged if needed. Regular meetings are scheduled to discuss progress, address challenges, and plan next steps. Funding for accessibility accommodations, travel, and related expenses is often budgeted as part of the project funding. Members may be reimbursed for travel and accommodation costs incurred during meetings.
The Standardization Administration of China (SAC)³² is responsible for establishing and sharing key project details in China. These details are shared through official communications, meetings, and digital platforms. Members receive regular updates on project progress, often via email or a centralized information system. New members undergo an orientation process, and various training resources are provided. Digital platforms and standardization databases are used for communication and document sharing among committee members. Accessibility is ensured, with meeting venues being accessible and remote participation available. Meetings are structured, with minutes recorded and distributed to all members. Funding for accessibility accommodations and travel expenses is often provided by organizing bodies, including SAC or industry associations. This funding covers costs related to travel, lodging, and necessary accommodations for disabled members.
In Europe³⁶, key project details are established through project documentation, regular updates, and onboarding processes. New members are invited to initial meetings where project details are discussed. Training resources, such as workshops and previous standards, are available. Collaboration platforms like Microsoft Teams and Zoom are used for communication and document sharing. Members often have access to databases of existing standards and technical documents. Committees are expected to accommodate members with disabilities, ensuring venues are accessible and providing necessary resources. Virtual meetings are increasingly common, allowing members who cannot attend in person to participate. Meetings are usually structured, with minutes and documentation shared to ensure transparency. Some organizations allocate specific budgets for accessibility accommodations and travel expenses. National standards bodies have policies in place to ensure members with disabilities receive necessary support and accommodations. Examples of countries with similar policies include the United Kingdom (BSI), Germany (DIN), and France (AFNOR). Each country has its own unique approach to establishing and sharing key project details, ensuring accessibility, and providing necessary support for disabled members.
The Hong Kong³⁷ standard development project involves documenting key project details and sharing them with committee members through official communications. Regular updates are provided through meetings, emails, and project management tools. Members are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the project, and undergo an orientation process. Training and resources are offered on specific topics relevant to the standards being developed. Project management tools, such as online platforms, are used for document management and communication. Accessibility accommodations are provided to all members, including materials in different formats, assistance for those with disabilities, and venues. Travel and participation accommodations may be arranged on a case-by-case basis. Meetings are structured with a clear agenda and minutes taken to document discussions, decisions, and action items. Funding for accessibility accommodations and travel expenses is usually determined at the outset of the project. Guidelines outline the conditions under which members can claim expenses, including necessary documentation and prior approval processes.
The Mexico^{38, 39} standardization project involves establishing key project details, such as objectives, timelines, and scope, during the initial planning phase. Information is shared with committee members through formal meetings, emails, and official documentation, ensuring alignment on project goals and expectations. Stakeholders are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the specific standard, and new members participate in an orientation session covering the standardization process, roles, and responsibilities. Training and resources are provided to members. Project management tools, such as shared drives or specialized software, are used to manage documents and track progress. Communication tools like email, video conferencing, and instant messaging facilitate communication among committee members. Accessibility accommodations and support services are provided to ensure everyone can fully participate. Meetings are structured with a clear agenda, and funding for accessibility accommodations and travel expenses is determined on a case-by-case basis.
The South American standardization process involves establishing key project details, such as objectives, scope, and timelines, at the beginning of the project. These details are shared with committee members through meetings, official documentation, and regular updates via email or project management platforms. Stakeholders are selected based on their expertise and relevance to the standard being developed. New members participate in an orientation session covering the standards development process, their roles, and responsibilities within the committee. Training and resources may be offered on specific topics related to the standards. Project management tools, such as shared drives, collaborative workspaces, or dedicated software, are used to facilitate document management and project tracking. Communication tools like email, video conferencing, and instant messaging are employed to maintain ongoing communication among committee members. Accessibility accommodations and support services are provided to ensure effective participation. Meetings are structured with a clear agenda and can be held in person or virtually. Funding for accessibility accommodations and travel expenses is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Theme 4: Developing a standard and reaching consensus on the draft

Description

The technical committee meets and begins to create the content for the standard document as defined by the scope (see Theme 3) producing a first draft. The committee deliberates and comes to a consensus on what features and criteria should be included (or excluded) from the specifications.

Research questions

How is consensus achieved? How are objections handled?
Is there guidance for effective, inclusive consensus making?
What is the chair’s role in consensus making?

Summary

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)² has two types of decisions: Chair decision, which is made by the chair based on their own judgment, and Group decision, which is made by consensus or by vote. Consensus is achieved through deliberation of views and objections. The Process Document encourages each group to specify minimum thresholds of active support to prevent apathy in decision-making. The chair has flexibility in assessing consensus, and voting is used only when deliberation fails to reach unanimous consensus. Dissenters can either abstain or register a formal objection with the W3C Team, which handles the objection and its decision. Additional processes related to formal objections include convening the W3C council, reviewing, and appealing decisions.
The WHATWG¹ process involves a Contributor and Workstream Participant Agreement for contributions to become part of the living standard. The sequence is proposal, incubation, iteration, commitment, and standardization. Decision-making occurs through participation in the Workstream, editor decisions, and scope definition. Issues can be escalated to the Steering Group. Acceptance into the living standard is determined through asynchronous discussion and a triage meeting, with at least two implementers and no strong objections.
The European Technical Standards Institute (ETSI)³ is a global organization that focuses on standardization, resourcing, and final approval. Consensus is general agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues. After approval, the documents are submitted to the ETSI Secretariat for publication. ETSI guides and standards are then made available to members for voting, with the success of the vote determining the standard’s publication. For European standards, the secretariat makes the draft available to National Standards Organizations (NSOs), who conduct a public inquiry and consultation. If successful, the standard may be published. The Chair aims to reach consensus through discussion, considering the objectives of obtaining the largest consensus possible and resolving potential conflicts. Reaching consensus may take time due to different stakeholders and different knowledge domains. If consensus cannot be reached, a secret ballot may be held.
The ISO⁴ Central Secretariat approves the Draft International Standard, allowing 12 weeks for members to comment and vote. A successful vote requires two-thirds of Technical Committee or Subcommittee members to vote in favor. The approval stage requires time for discussions, negotiation, and resolution of technical disagreements. ISO Directive, part 1, states that those expressing sustained opposition have a right to be heard. Leadership checks if the opposition is backed by an important group, recognizes it, and handles it honestly. The directive also outlines appeal procedures, including those against subcommittee and technical committee decisions.
The development of standards in Japan^{22, 23} involves an initial proposal from stakeholders, followed by technical committees drafting specifications, guidelines, and requirements. Consensus is sought through discussions and deliberations, with members encouraged to express their views and provide feedback. If objections arise, they are addressed through further discussion and negotiation. The Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC) provides guidelines on effective consensus-building, emphasizing transparency, inclusivity, and considering all viewpoints in decision-making. The chairperson plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions and guiding the consensus-building process, ensuring all members have an opportunity to contribute. The chair is responsible for addressing conflicts, mediating discussions, and adhering to established guidelines. Once consensus is reached, the chair helps finalize the draft for approval, ensuring it accurately reflects the committee’s collective input.
India’s Bureau of Standards (BIS)³⁰ is a key player in the development of standards. The process begins with identifying the need for a standard based on stakeholder input, market demands, and regulatory requirements. Technical committees are formed, including experts from various fields, to draft the standard. The draft is then circulated for public consultation, allowing stakeholders to provide feedback. Consensus building is achieved through discussions and negotiations among committee members, aiming to incorporate diverse perspectives. If objections arise, the committee engages in dialogue to address them. Formal voting may be conducted to resolve disagreements, and a majority vote can help move forward if consensus cannot be reached. BIS provides procedural guidelines emphasizing inclusivity and transparency in the consensus-building process. Training sessions and workshops are also conducted to improve communication skills and conflict resolution. The chair plays a crucial role in consensus making, guiding discussions, mediating conflicts, decision-making, and ensuring inclusivity.
The South African^{24, 25} Standards Development Process involves technical committees drafting standards based on identified needs, research, and stakeholder input. Public consultation allows stakeholders to provide feedback. The process involves extensive discussion, voting, and handling objections through open dialogue. The draft may be revised based on valid objections, and further rounds may be scheduled to ensure all voices are heard. The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) provides guidelines on effective consensus-making, emphasizing inclusivity, transparency, and respect for diverse perspectives. Training resources may be offered to committee members on facilitation and consensus-building techniques. The chair plays a crucial role in guiding discussions, managing conflicts, maintaining focus, and summarizing and proposing solutions. The chair may summarize discussions, highlight areas of agreement, and propose pathways forward when consensus is difficult to achieve.
China’s ^{32, 33, 34} standardization process involves expert committees organized by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC) or relevant industry associations. These committees collaborate on technical needs, market demands, and regulatory requirements. Consensus is reached through discussions, revisions, and consultations among committee members, often involving multiple rounds of review. In China, consensus is a broad agreement among committee members, encouraging open dialogue and negotiation. Objections are addressed through discussions, and if consensus cannot be achieved, alternative solutions or compromises are explored. The SAC emphasizes inclusive participation and open communication in the standardization process. Training sessions may be offered to committee members on effective communication and negotiation strategies. The chair plays a crucial role in guiding the consensus process, managing discussions, ensuring all members have the opportunity to express their opinions, and facilitating conflict resolution.
South Korea’s²⁰ technical committees, organized by the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS), collaborate with industry, academia, government, and consumer groups to develop standards based on market needs, regulatory requirements, and technological advancements. Consensus is reached through discussions, revisions, and consultations among committee members, typically involving multiple rounds of review. In South Korea, consensus is achieved through collaborative dialogue rather than formal voting, and objections are addressed openly. KATS provides guidelines for inclusive consensus making, emphasizing effective communication and inclusivity. Training resources are offered to enhance committee members’ skills in these areas. The chair facilitates the consensus process, manages discussions, ensures all voices are heard, and addresses conflicts and objections. Their role is crucial in maintaining a collaborative atmosphere during meetings.
European³⁶ standards are developed by technical committees formed by national standards bodies (NSBs) or European standards organizations, consisting of experts from relevant sectors. Consensus is achieved through discussions, revisions, and consultations among committee members, often involving multiple rounds of review and feedback. The process encourages dialogue and negotiation to address differing opinions. If objections arise, they are addressed through discussions, revisions, or alternative solutions. NSBs and European organizations provide guidance on effective and inclusive consensus-building practices, promoting respectful dialogue and fostering an inclusive environment. Training and resources are offered to committee members to enhance their skills in consensus building. The chair plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions and guiding the consensus process, ensuring meetings are structured, time is managed effectively, and participation from all members is encouraged. Examples of countries that emphasize consensus in their standard development processes include the United Kingdom (BSI)⁴⁰, Germany (DIN)⁴², France (AFNOR)⁴¹, and the Netherlands (NEN)⁴³. Each country has its own unique approach to consensus building, with the chair playing a crucial role in facilitating dialogue and addressing objections.
The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre (HKSTC)³⁷ is a leading authority in the development of standards. The process begins with a project based on identified needs or stakeholder requests. A technical committee is formed, incorporating technical knowledge and feedback from stakeholders. The committee then engages in consensus building, with input from industry representatives, government officials, and consumer advocates. The draft standard undergoes review and discussion within the committee, with members providing feedback and suggesting revisions. Consensus is achieved through open dialogue, compromise, documentation of objections, and conflict resolution. The chair plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions, managing conflicts, and making decisions collectively. The HKSTC provides guidelines for effective and inclusive consensus-making, emphasizing transparency, stakeholder engagement, and respectful dialogue.
Mexico’s³⁸ standard development process involves initiation, drafting, and consensus building. A technical committee, consisting of experts from relevant sectors, is formed to draft the standard, incorporating technical insights and stakeholder perspectives. The process involves ongoing engagement with stakeholders, including industry representatives, governmental entities, and consumer groups. The draft standard is circulated among committee members for review and feedback. Consensus is achieved through a general agreement, open discussions, and documenting objections. If significant disagreements occur, additional meetings may be scheduled. The ANCE and DGN provide guidelines for inclusive consensus-making, emphasizing transparency, stakeholder involvement, and considering diverse perspectives. The chair of the technical committee plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions, managing conflicts, and making final decisions. This process ensures that all voices are heard and the agenda is followed.
The development of standards in South America involves a process that starts with identifying a need for a standard, which is then drafted by a technical committee consisting of experts from various sectors. The committee then engages with stakeholders through public consultations, workshops, and discussions to ensure all parties are represented. The draft standard is circulated among committee members and stakeholders for review, allowing for feedback and suggestions for improvement. Consensus is typically achieved through general agreement, with facilitated discussions and documented objections. If significant disagreements arise, additional meetings or workshops may be held to resolve them. National standardization bodies often provide guidelines on effective and inclusive consensus-making, emphasizing transparency, inclusivity, and thorough engagement with all stakeholders. The chair plays a crucial role in facilitating discussions, managing conflicts, and making final decisions, reflecting the consensus achieved.

Theme 5: Public feedback on draft standard

Description

The draft standard is made available for public review and comment, and the Standards Development Organization can try to engage and encourage the public to participate, in order to ensure as wide a consensus as possible regarding the standard in question.

Research questions

When are there public touch-points in the process?
How is public feedback gathered?
How is the public informed?
How transparent is the process?

Summary

ETSI’s³ Standardization Principles of Transparency state that information on new standardization activities is publicly and widely announced through suitable and accessible means. Only European Standards (EN) go through a Public Enquiry stage, carried out by National Standards Organizations (NSOs). The process includes consultations that result in the submission of the national position. The transparency of the process, how information is announced, and how comments are gathered may differ between NSOs. For example, Bureau de Normalisation (NBN) in Belgium has a public portal for viewing and commenting on EN standards in development, while DIN in Germany allows readers to read and comment on standards on their website. Standards documents in development are available through a public portal in PDF format, and comments can be made through a short online form.
Public consultations on drafted standards are conducted by national standards bodies (NSBs) and European³⁶ standardization organizations like the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the European Electrotechnical Committee for Standardization (CENELEC). These consultations allow stakeholders and the general public to review and comment on the drafts before they are finalized. Draft standards are typically published on the NSB’s or relevant organization’s website, with key touchpoints being the initial draft release and a specified review period. Feedback is usually gathered through online platforms, workshops, and meetings. Organizations inform the public through official announcements, newsletters, and updates on their websites, as well as social media. They may also use existing networks of stakeholders to disseminate information about upcoming public consultations and the availability of draft standards. The process is generally transparent, with drafts readily available in an accessible format to the public. Comments received during consultations are often summarized and published, providing insight into how stakeholder input is considered. Many organizations publish reports summarizing the feedback received and how it influenced the final standard.
The Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC)²³ conducts a process of public touchpoints in the development of standards. The draft review phase involves public review and comment, followed by a consultation period for stakeholders to review and submit feedback. Public meetings and discussions are organized to foster dialogue between the public, industry experts, and SDO representatives. Feedback can be gathered through online platforms, written submissions, workshops, and meetings. Official websites, newsletters, bulletins, and media outlets are used to inform the public about the draft standards. Transparency is maintained through the publication of feedback, rationale for decisions, and access to documents. After the consultation period ends, SDOs publish a summary of the feedback received, explaining how and why certain suggestions were incorporated or rejected in the final version of the standard. This detailed summary adds a layer of transparency to the decision-making process.
Standards Australia¹³ facilitates the process of developing standards in Australia, ensuring public participation and consensus. Drafts are made available for public comment for 9 weeks, and the technical committee takes all feedback. Public touchpoints include the draft review phase, consultation period, forums, and meetings. Feedback is gathered through online submissions, written submissions, and meetings. Standards Australia informs the public through its official website, email alerts, social media platforms, newsletters, and targeted outreach to industry groups, professional associations, and consumer organizations. Transparency is maintained through the publication of feedback, rationale for decisions, and access to documents. After the consultation period ends, a summary of the feedback received is made available on the SDO’s website. SDOs provide explanations for how and why certain suggestions were incorporated or rejected in the final version of the standard, adding a layer of transparency to the decision-making process. Access to documents, including the draft standard, public feedback reports, and the final standard, allows stakeholders to follow the evolution of the standard from draft to final approval.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)11 and industry-focused organizations like IEEE and ASTM International ensure public participation in the standards development process. The process involves several public touchpoints, including the Drafting Phase, Public Review Period, Open Meetings, Feedback Generation, and Public Stakeholder Meetings. Feedback is primarily collected through online portals, email and written submissions, workshops, forums, or webinars. SDOs also publish draft standards and announcements on their websites and dedicated portals like ANSI’s Standards Action newsletter. They also send email alerts and newsletters to members and stakeholders, targeting specific industries or sectors to ensure relevant stakeholders are aware of upcoming draft standards. Broader public awareness is sometimes achieved through media outlets and social media, especially when standards have significant public interest or impact. Transparency is maintained through the publication of comments and decisions, the rationale for changes, and public access to documents. After the consultation period, SDOs typically publish a summary of the comments received and how they were addressed, with detailed responses provided to ensure transparency. If changes are made based on public feedback, SDOs often provide an explanation for the decisions made, usually shared in a report accompanying the final standard.
Taiwan’s14,15,16,17,18,19 standards development process involves public enquiry and standards harmonization to ensure alignment with international and regional frameworks. The Bureau of Standards, Metrology, and Inspection (BSMI) conducts public consultations, making draft standards available for review and comment. Industry stakeholders, academics, and civil society can provide feedback via online portals or in writing. Taiwan harmonizes its standards with international bodies like ISO and IEC, focusing on electronics and telecommunications sectors. Collaboration with regional technical committees ensures global norm alignment. Parent committees review drafts before finalization. Taiwan actively participates in international standard-setting, submitting comments to reflect its domestic needs.
The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS)24,25 engages the public in various stages of its standards development process. These stages include online public consultation, ƒsector-specific meetings, engagement with advocacy groups and NGOs, regional consultations, surveys, and feedback analysis and review. The SABS publishes draft standards on its portal, where stakeholders can submit comments. Sector-specific meetings and workshops are held with industry experts, regulators, and advocacy groups. SABS also engages with consumer, environmental, and disability rights groups through meetings or online submissions.
The Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS)26,27,28 engages the public during the draft review stage and engages with key stakeholders through pre-consultations. They collect public comments through their website, in-person meetings, and workshops, and use media outlets and government communication channels to inform the public.
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)30 in India engages the public after technical committees approve draft standards through online portals, surveys, and public hearings. It uses its website, social media, and targeted outreach to inform industry bodies and consumer groups, but transparency is variable.
The Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT)31 engages the public in the draft phase of technical standards, consulting industry groups and academic institutions. Feedback is collected through online meetings, newsletters, and collaborations, and ABNT maintains transparency by publishing decision rationales.
In Ireland12, the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) manages the public consultation process through the Your Standards, Your Say platform, aiming to ensure broad participation and a consensus-based approach to standards development. The process begins after the NSAI’s technical committees develop a draft standard, with a consultation period typically lasting 4 to 8 weeks. Stakeholders can review the draft and submit feedback through various channels, including an online platform, email and written submissions, workshops, webinars, or face-to-face meetings. NSAI also posts notifications about new draft standards on its website and consultation platform, sends email alerts to registered stakeholders, and uses traditional media channels and social media platforms to inform the broader public. For technical standards affecting specific sectors, NSAI may contact industry groups, professional associations, and other key stakeholders directly to encourage their participation. Transparency is maintained through the publication of feedback, the rationale for changes, and public access to final standards. The final version of the standard and the accompanying report outlines how feedback was addressed. NSAI demonstrates transparency by clearly documenting all stages of the public consultation and publishing detailed explanations for any changes made to the draft standard based on the public’s feedback. For example, when NSAI was revising standards related to energy efficiency in buildings, the draft was made available on the Your Standards, Your Say platform.
The Standardization Administration of China (SAC)32,33,34 and other Standard Development Organizations (SDOs) in China manage the public consultation process for standards. Public participation is encouraged to ensure a broad consensus, with transparency levels varying compared to some Western countries. The process involves several touchpoints, including the draft review stage, public consultation period, industry and stakeholder engagement, and feedback collection. SDOs collect feedback through online platforms, written submissions, workshops, and public meetings. Draft standards are published on SAC’s official website and the National Public Service Platform for Standards Information, and notifications are disseminated through newsletters, targeted outreach, social media, and official news outlets. SDOs often collaborate with industry associations to spread awareness and encourage participation. Transparency in the process is limited, with SAC publishing the final standards but not providing detailed responses to individual comments or a summary of feedback. The rationale behind decisions may not be as detailed as in other countries.
In Russia35, drafted standards are made available for public review and comment through Rosstandart, the Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology. The process lasts for at least 60 days, allowing stakeholders to provide feedback. Public consultations are crucial in the standardization process, involving industry experts, businesses, and the general public. Once prepared, the draft is published through official channels and industry-specific portals. Feedback is collected through Rosstandart’s website and industry-specific channels, ensuring input from technical experts and broader public opinions. After the comment period, the technical committee reviews the feedback, integrating it into the draft and making necessary revisions. The transparency of the standard development process is maintained, but the level of public engagement can vary based on platform accessibility and communication.
The W3C2 website allows users to search for draft standards, with the “any reports in progress” filter showing only working drafts. Public review announcements are posted to the W3 Public Review Announce mailing list. W3C has a web page describing how the public can participate in reviews and feedback, including reviewing drafts, implementing drafts, reporting bugs, commenting on draft charters, developing tests, and evaluating implementations of draft standards. Technical documents are open for feedback when a Working Draft is published by a Working Group, and comments are gathered via the Working Group’s github issue tracker. W3C maintains open and public mailing lists, a history of revisions and drafts, and Github repositories tracking contributions and discussions on issues related to working groups. The News section on the website shares details about announcements, milestones, and deadlines related to different working groups.
WHATWG1 does not publish public notifications for participation, but the public can become involved by monitoring work streams on Github. The Workstream Editor publishes notes in the repository without additional notifications. There is no specific comment period for standards, but work on living standards is ongoing. Public feedback is gathering through weekly “Triage” meetings and a Matrix chatroom. Most work is done publicly in the WHATWG Github repositories.

Theme 6: Committee review of feedback and publication of final standard

Description

The technical committee addresses the public’s feedback by deliberating the feedback and revising the draft standard as needed. Once a final draft is achieved and approved by the SDO, the SDO works to publish/distribute it to the standard’s intended audience.

Research questions

How are comments handled?
How are standards published? What formats?
Are drafts publicly accessible?

Summary

The W3C2 process involves multiple rounds of drafts for technical documents, known as “wide review,” which outlines the goal, intent, request for changes, and how those changes were addressed After review, a working draft becomes a Candidate Recommendation, which is then a Proposed Recommendation and finally a W3C Recommendation. These recommendations are published under W3C standards and drafts, and can be accessed by the working group, and by the public.
ETSI3 allows technical groups to organize their work within the Technical Working Procedures, sharing documents via DocBox and LISTSERV. Drafts are sent to the Working Group, and approval is granted by the Technical Group. For EN standards, comments are shared with the technical committee, and a Weighted National Voting procedure is performed over 90 days. If no technical comments are received, the standard is published within 10 days, including a PDF document on the ETSI web server.
ISO4 committees address member and liaison organization comments, and standards are published in PDF, ePub, and Redline formats, or requested in paper. Final standards are behind a paywall, but public versions of Enquiry phase documents are available through NSOs.
The WHATWG1 process involves a review of Github issues and their solutions in a Matrix chatroom. Once the issues have been addressed and their solutions have matured and met necessary requirements, such as basic browser support and implementation, the issues and solutions are merged into the living standard by the workstream editor.
The Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC)21,22,23 is responsible for the development and publication of standards. The committee collects feedback from stakeholders, including industry representatives and the public, during a public comment period. The technical committee reviews the feedback systematically, considering suggestions for revisions. The committee may revise the draft standard based on the feedback, providing documentation regarding non-incorporated comments… Once the committee has reached a consensus, the final draft is submitted for approval by the governing body. The finalized standard is published in print and digital formats, with options for easy access, including PDF, printed copies, and web access. The drafts are made publicly accessible during the comment period, allowing stakeholders and the general public to contribute to the standardization process.
The Indian30 Technical Committee reviews all feedback received on a draft standard, categorizing it based on its nature and relevance. The committee then discusses the feedback in detail, addressing objections and considering suggested modifications. Once all comments have been reviewed, the committee prepares the final version, which is submitted to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) for approval. The committee handles comments systematically, ensuring transparency and understanding of the input of stakeholders. Once approved, the final standard is published in various formats, including printed documents, digital formats, and official standards assigned unique identification numbers. Public access to drafts is made during the consultation phase, promoting transparency and broader participation in the standardization process.
In South Africa24,25, a draft standard is reviewed by a technical committee after public consultation. Feedback is collected through various channels, and the committee assesses the relevance and impact of the comments. The committee categorizes the comments, develops responses, and revises the draft standard if necessary. The final standards are published in various formats, including printed documents and electronic versions, and are typically made available through official channels like the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) website. Draft standards are made publicly accessible during the consultation period and post-review, though older drafts may not remain available.
The Technical Committee of the Standardization Administration of China (SAC)32,33,34 reviews all feedback received on a draft standard, analyzing its relevance and potential impact. The committee holds meetings to discuss the feedback, and the revised draft may be submitted for final approval. The updated draft is then published and distributed to stakeholders. Comments received during the consultation are categorized to facilitate the review process and are documented for transparency. The final standards are published in various formats, including PDF, print, online databases, and available for purchase. Public access to drafts is made during the consultation period, allowing stakeholders and the general public to review and provide feedback. This transparency promotes stakeholder engagement and participation in the standardization process.
The South Korean20 Technical Committee reviews feedback on draft standards after public consultation. The committee, organized by the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS), assesses comments and discusses their implications. They hold meetings to discuss feedback, make necessary revisions, and reach a consensus on the final text. Comments are considered and prioritized, and the committee documents how feedback was addressed. The updated draft is submitted for final approval, and the finalized standard is published and made available to the public. Comments are typically categorized and response documentation is provided to ensure appropriate responses. The final standards are published in various formats, including PDF, print, online access, and purchase. Public access to drafts during consultation allows stakeholders and the general public to review and provide feedback. This transparency promotes engagement with proposed standards and contributes to the standardization process.
The technical committee reviews all feedback received on a draft standard, assessing its validity and determining its impact. The committee meets to discuss the feedback in detail and revise the draft as appropriate… The revised draft is submitted for final approval by the committee, with some approval from broader governing bodies or stakeholders. Comments are typically categorized to facilitate the review process and are documented for future reference. Final standards are published in various formats, including PDF, print, and online databases maintained by national standards bodies or European organizations. They are generally available for purchase through national standards bodies’ websites or the relevant standardization organization’s site. Draft standards are typically accessible to the public during the consultation period, published on the NSB’s website or the relevant standardization organization’s site. This transparency helps ensure stakeholders can understand and engage with the proposed standards. Some countries with successful standardization processes include the United Kingdom (BSI)40, Germany (DIN)42, France (AFNOR)42, and the Netherlands (NEN)43. BSI reviews all feedback received during public consultations, categorizes and responds to significant comments, and publishes finalized standards in PDF format. AFNOR compiles feedback and discusses it within the technical committee, revising the draft as necessary.
The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre (HKSTC)37 conducts a process for the review and publication of final standards. Feedback is collected from committee members and stakeholders through various means, such as meetings, written submissions, or public consultations. The committee analyzes the feedback to identify common themes, suggestions, and objections. The draft standard is then revised, often involving multiple iterations, and approved by the committee. All comments and feedback are documented systematically, with the committee providing responses to significant comments. The standards are published in various formats, including print, digital, online access, and official publication. Public access to drafts is often made during the consultation phase, allowing stakeholders and the general public to review and provide feedback. The process is designed to be transparent, with drafts typically available on the websites of relevant standardization organizations.
Mexico’s38,39 process for drafting final standards involves a committee review of feedback from stakeholders, including industry representatives, government agencies, and the public. The technical committee then analyzes the feedback, making necessary revisions. The final standard is approved by the committee, typically requiring a formal vote to reach consensus. All comments received during the consultation period are documented, providing a clear record of the feedback process. The committee may issue a response to major comments, explaining how they were addressed in the final standard or providing reasons for their rejection. The final standards are published in various formats, including print, digital, and official gazette. The Mexican Organization for Standardization and Certification (ANCE) and the General Directorate of Standards (DGN) oversee the publication process. Drafts are made publicly accessible during the consultation phase, promoting transparency and active participation from all interested parties.
The South American standardization process involves a committee review of feedback from stakeholders, including industry representatives, government agencies, and consumer groups. The committee then reviews the feedback during meetings, assessing its significance and relevance. The draft standard is then revised based on the feedback, often involving multiple iterations. The final standard is approved by the committee, often requiring a consensus or formal vote. All feedback and comments are documented systematically, including acceptance and rejection. The committee may provide responses to significant comments, explaining how they were addressed in the final version or justifying the lack of certain suggestions. Standards are typically published in various formats, including print, digital, and official journals. The publication process is often overseen by national standardization organizations. Drafts are made publicly accessible during consultation, promoting transparency and participation in the standardization process.

Theme 7: Regular review of published standards

Description

The standard is reviewed every few years to ensure it is still relevant and applicable to the current state of affairs.

Research questions

While a standard is published - is there a way for stakeholders and the general public to provide feedback on the standard in practice?
Who is responsible for review and upkeep of a published standard? Is the technical committee retained for this purpose, or is a new group created?
How is the public informed about standards that are being reviewed?
Is the public involved in this process?

Summary

The W3C2 (W3C, 2023) emphasizes the ongoing review of published standards, which can be updated through an update request or a new working draft. New features can be added to a recommendation, but some recommendations prohibit new features from being feature-stable. Feedback is primarily collected through Github issues for different working groups, similar to Theme 5. A Working Group is responsible for maintaining a recommendation, and if there is no Working Group, the W3C Team assumes responsibility. Public notification is required for revisions, ensuring all stakeholders, including the general public, have adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group. Any changes to existing recommendations must undergo wide review before being incorporated, following the same process as Theme 5.
WHATWG’s1 workstream policy involves regular review of published standards without a discrete maintenance phase. Issues can be filed to the Workstream repository, which can be addressed by other contributors. Feedback mechanisms are similar to Theme 5. The workstream editor is responsible for reviewing and maintaining living standards. Public notification is provided by the editor, and participants are responsible for being updated on any changes.
The WhatWG is a collaborative standard review process that involves regular review of published standards, with no discrete maintenance phase. The workstream editor is responsible for updating living standards, and participants are responsible for being up-to-date on any issues or revisions. The ETSI3 standard database indicates which standards are being revised, with details for the update indicating the Technical Body in charge of the work. Participants can sign up for alerts for a standard being revised to be notified of the next publicly available version. The committee may publish an amendment, update the standard, create a new standard, withdraw an obsolete standard, or downgrade the current standard to an inactive status.
ISO4 standards are reviewed at least every 5 years.
Japan’s21,22,23 standardization process involves regular reviews of published standards, often every few years, to evaluate their effectiveness, relevance, and alignment with current practices. Feedback mechanisms include stakeholder consultations, online surveys, and forums. The review process is conducted by technical committees or specific working groups, with the same committee as the one that developed the standard in the first place or a new group formed if necessary. The committee composition may include original members and new experts for a comprehensive evaluation. The public is informed about ongoing reviews through relevant bodies and industry newsletters or press releases. Notifications may include calls for public input, inviting stakeholders to participate in the review process. Public involvement is encouraged through consultation periods, ensuring diverse viewpoints are considered. Transparency is a key commitment to the review process, ensuring stakeholders remain engaged and informed about changes and updates to standards.
India’s Bureau of Standards (BIS)30 conducts periodic reviews of published standards every five years to ensure they remain relevant and reflect current technologies and practices. Feedback is encouraged through formal channels, such as feedback forms on the BIS website and industry consultations. The original technical committee responsible for developing the standard is usually involved in the review, assessing the need for updates based on feedback, technological changes, and market demands. If significant changes are needed or the standard falls under a different technological scope, a new committee may be formed. BIS informs the public about the standards undergoing review through announcements on its website, newsletters, and press releases. Public involvement is encouraged through consultation opportunities and feedback mechanisms, ensuring transparency and inclusivity in the review process.
South Africa’s standards are regularly reviewed every 5 years to ensure they remain relevant and up-to-date with technological and industry changes. Stakeholders and the public can provide feedback through various channels, including surveys, forums, and direct communication with the standards body. Continuous feedback is also provided through designated contact points or online platforms. Public consultation processes may be initiated to gather broader input. The technical committee responsible for the original standard is usually retained for its review, while ad-hoc groups may be formed if specialized knowledge is required. The public is informed about the standards under review through official announcements and stakeholder engagement. Public involvement is encouraged, and workshops and meetings may be hosted to discuss the standards and gather feedback.
The Korean20 Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS) conducts a regular review of published standards every five years to ensure they remain relevant and align with current technology and market needs. The review process evaluates standards based on factors such as technological changes, user feedback, regulatory updates, and industry practices. Public feedback is encouraged, and KATS is responsible for the review and upkeep of these standards through technical committees, new groups, and official announcements on their website, newsletters, press releases, and social media. The public is typically involved in the review process through consultation periods and workshops or meetings, ensuring diverse viewpoints are considered.
European organizations like BSI, DIN, AFNOR, and NEN conduct regular reviews of published standards every five years to ensure they remain relevant and up-to-date with technological advancements and market needs. Feedback is collected from stakeholders, including industry professionals, regulatory bodies, and the public, and the responsibility for reviewing and maintaining standards falls on the same technical committee that developed the standard. Public information on standards being reviewed is communicated through official announcements, newsletters, press releases, and social media channels. Stakeholders are typically involved in consultation phases and may hold workshops or meetings to discuss standards under review. Examples of countries with successful review processes include the United Kingdom (BSI)40, Germany (DIN)42, France (AFNOR)41, and the Netherlands (NEN)43. These organizations maintain the same technical committees for review and maintain transparency to keep the public informed about standards under review.
The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre (HKSTC)37 conducts regular reviews of published standards, triggered by technological advancements, regulatory changes, industry feedback, or time. Feedback mechanisms include open consultations and public comment periods. The review responsibility is typically retained by the original technical committee, with new groups formed for significant changes or expertise. Public information about reviews is communicated through official announcements and stakeholder engagement. Public involvement is encouraged through open consultations and access to revised standards and related documents.
Mexico’s National Development Goals (DGN)38,39 regularly reviews published standards, assessing their applicability, effectiveness, and alignment with technological advances or regulatory changes. Feedback is gathered through public consultations, surveys, and forums. The review is overseen by technical committees and new groups if necessary. The DGN and ANCE publish notifications about the review, allowing stakeholders to be informed about upcoming reviews and opportunities for input. Public involvement is encouraged through access to information and opportunities for engagement through public consultations, forums, and direct feedback mechanisms.
South America’s standardization process involves regular reviews every three to five years to ensure they remain relevant to technological advancements and industry practices. The review assesses factors like applicability, regulatory compliance, and user feedback. Feedback mechanisms include public consultations and workshops. Technical committees and new groups are responsible for the review process. Stakeholders are informed about reviews through official announcements and direct communication. Public involvement is encouraged through access to drafts and the promotion of feedback, ensuring all voices can be heard in the review process.

References

WHATWG

WHATWG (2024). Standards. https://spec.whatwg.org/

W3C

W3C (2022). W3C Process Document. https://www.w3.org/policies/process/

ETSI

ETSI (2022). Standards. https://www.etsi.org/standards

ISO

ISO (2024). Guidance on new work. Retrieved from [https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100438.pdf

](https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100438.pdf)

Ontario

Government of Ontario (2021). Standards Development Committees. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/standards-development-committees

Canada

Kovac, L. (2021). Accessibility Standards Development Processes Across Canada. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from https://aoda.ca/accessibility-standards-development-processes-across-canada/
ASC (2023). Standards Development Operational Requirements. Retrieved from:
Accessibility Standards Canada (2024). Creating Accessibility Standards. Retrieved from https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards
Accessibility Standards Canada (2022). 2022 Annual Public Meeting - Update on Standards Development. Retrieved from https://accessible.canada.ca/sites/default/files/2022-09/StandardsDevelopmentPresentation_0.pdf

USA

Standards Coordinating Body (2024). Standards Development Process. Retrieved from https://www.standardscoordinatingbody.org/standards-process
ANSI (2024). ANSI-Accredited Standards Developer Audit Program. Retrieved from https://ansi.org/american-national-standards/info-for-standards-developers/accreditation/audit

Ireland

NSAI (2024). Universal Design and Inclusion. Retrieved from https://www.nsai.ie/standards/sectors/universal-design-and-inclusion/

Australia

Standards Australia (2024). Our Process. Retrieved from https://www.standards.org.au/standards-development/developing-standards/process

Taiwan

Cho, A. (2024). Expanding on Taiwan’s SEMI E187 Development. Semi. Retrieved from https://www.semi.org/en/standards-watch-2024-jun/expanding-on-taiwans-semi-e187-development
Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection. (n.d.). Standards Development Process. BSMI Website.
Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection. (2016). Public Participation in Standards Development. BSMI Public Consultation Guidelines.
Hsu, P. (2020). “The Role of Taiwan’s Standards Development in Global Trade.” Journal of Standards and International Trade, 12(3), 45-58.
Tsai, C. (2019). “Enhancing Transparency in Standards Development: The Case of Taiwan.” Asian Journal of Public Policy, 13(1), 79-95.
Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection. (n.d.). International Cooperation. Retrieved from BSMI International Relations.

South Korea

ANSI (2024). ROK Standards System: Development of Korean Industrial Standards (KS). Retrieved from https://www.standardsportal.org/usa_kr/e/standards_system/development_korean_standards.aspx

Japan

Yoshida, M., Kinoshita, Y., Watanabe, M., & Sugano, K. (2015). JSGE Clinical Practice Guidelines 2014: standards, methods, and process of developing the guidelines. Journal of Gastroenterology, 50(1), 4-10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00535-014-1016-1
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). (2018). Standardization Policy in Japan. https://www.meti.go.jp/english/
Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC). (n.d.). Public Comment Procedure. https://www.jisc.go.jp/eng/

South Africa

SABS Official Website https://www.sabs.co.za/
South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). (n.d.). Stakeholder Engagement. Retrieved from SABS Stakeholder Engagement

Kenya

Kenya Bureau of Standards. (n.d.). Public Participation in Standardization. Retrieved from KEBS website.
Kenya Bureau of Standards. (2019). Standardization and Quality Assurance in Kenya. Retrieved from KEBS Annual Report.
Kenya Bureau of Standards. (2022). Public Participation and Communication Strategy.
Kenya Bureau of Standards. (2020). Stakeholder Engagement and Transparency Report. Retrieved from KEBS Publications.

India

Bureau of Indian Standards https://www.bis.gov.in/?lang=en

Brazil

Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT). (n.d.). https://abnt.org.br/

China

Standardization Administration of China (SAC). (n.d.). Public Comment Process for Draft Standards. Retrieved from SAC website.
China National Institute of Standardization (CNIS). (n.d.). Standard Development and Public Participation. Retrieved from CNIS website.
National Public Service Platform for Standards Information. (n.d.). Public Comment Portal. Retrieved from Standards Information Platform.

Russia

Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology of the Russian Federation(n.d.).http://government.ru/en/department/56/

Europe

CEN, the European Committee for Standardization(n.d.).https://www.cencenelec.eu/about-cen/

Hong Kong

STC, (n.d.).https://www.stc.group/en

Mexico

Mexico’s Organization for Standardization and Certification (ANCE), (n.d.).https://www.ance.org.mx/Ance/
General Directorate of Standards (DGN), (n.d.).https://www.gob.mx/se/

England

British Standards Institution (BSI)(n.d.).https://www.bsigroup.com/en-CA/

France

Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR)(n.d.).https://www.afnor.org/

Germany

DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN)(n.d.).https://www.din.de/de

Netherlands

Royal Netherlands Standardization Institute (NEN)(n.d.).https://www.nen.nl/

Jurisdictional Scan

Theme 1: Identifying need and proposing a feasible standard

Description

Research questions

Summary

Theme 2: Consulting and assembling key stakeholders and members for committees

Description

Research Questions

Summary

Theme 3: Establishing and sharing key project details with committee members

Description

Research questions

Summary

Theme 4: Developing a standard and reaching consensus on the draft

Description

Research questions

Summary

Theme 5: Public feedback on draft standard

Description

Research questions

Summary

Theme 6: Committee review of feedback and publication of final standard

Description

Research questions

Summary

Theme 7: Regular review of published standards

Description

Research questions

Summary

References