Long Beach California 14 Sept 2011 Mike Roberts

Long Beach, California 14 Sept 2011 Mike Roberts – Team Leader

Confusing Ballot Results • 2011 Re-ballot of 9104/1 – Clearly and cleanly passed in the Americas – Comments sent by Asia-Pacific, but no ballot results – not in compliance with IAQG 106 – It appears that there were three ballots taken in Europe. • Germany voted Disapprove in one ballot • Rolls Royce voted both Disapprove and Approve in a second ballot • Unclear of CEN ballot results – 48 pages of comments provided by Gunter Lessmann – IAQG Standards Manager

Current Situation • 9104/1 team has been working on the rewrite of this standard for 4 1/2 years – Most comments came from persons/entities not involved on the rewrite team or OPMT. – We cannot keep re-discussing issues that have been previously accepted/adopted. – We cannot accept technical changes to the ballot draft without causing another ballot, which will probably delay another year. – We can accept non-technical improvements or typo corrections, within reason.

IAQG 106 Requirements • The resolution of comments is the responsibility of the: – IDR – The 3 SDRs – The writing team leader • Comments must be reviewed, but there is no requirement for acceptance • Sectors have different ballot accept/reject criteria. – Nothing presented to Gunter Lessmann indicates a ballot failure in any Sector – Re-balloting required for technical changes.

The Plan • Comments will be separated by document chapters, and addressed by the chapter bookboss teams. • All comments will be separated into Categories • We will use the Comments (. doc) template provided by Gunter Lessmann as the official response sheet. • The 9104/1 team leader will maintain the official draft of the document and comment sheets. • We will try to comply with the IAQG 106 30 -day review cycle.

Schedule

Team Lead Comments • It is time to complete this project. This project will have taken 5 years if we are successful now. • Not everyone will be happy. • We can’t keep re-hashing previously approved or dispositioned topics. • Significant technical changes will postponed until the next revision of the standard. • Failure to publish by the end of the year will significantly impact the ICOP process, and will damage any credibility that we still may have with our customer base.