E-mail 000417
ISO/TC-8 A.G. meeting at the Azores
Dear Charlie,
Although there will be no representative from Denmark attending the above-mentioned meeting, may be I could do something from a distance.
I've been looking on doc. N-534 draft agenda from February 24, 2000 and N-536, SC exception reports from April 6, 2000, and I've two remarks, which I feel belong to item 7 of the agenda.
First item
I'm reviewing some proposals for standards and one of them is WD 17338, originally launched as "symbols for structural fire protection" in SC1/WG3, and tentatively re-titled - "passive fire protection plans for merchant ships".
It is within the latter mentioned that we, to the best of my recollection, for the first time introduce the wording "merchant ships" in the title for a standard.
We may have used "merchant ship" expressions to partly limit the full use of a standard for whatever reason, but this is than always done in the scope description, which is no trouble. Now a days national navy's are introducing more and more civil standards specifications in their newbuiling contracts.
When you look in our TC-8 scope there are no exclusions for non-merchant ships.
Charlie, I feel we need to discuss this seriously, and correct SC1/WG3 if consensus can be reached at the A.G. in not no exclude navy vessels by giving standards names indicating for merchant ships only.
Second item
I feel there is still too much paper involved in the exception reports. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember that we agreed upon, only to be informed about issues where development of adopted WI's was hampered.
This could be for principal reasons, translation errors, and interpretation misunderstandings, you name it.
What I see in a number of reports is information on work, which is going on well, but may be slightly delayed for any particular reason. This is for the particular SC-secretariat to handle.
Did I, make myself clear Charlie, please respond.
PS.: By the way, I'd not see a SC1 exception report.
Ad
