126 / 234
SETTING THE STANDARD
ISO, CEN and IIW and taking the current Route II out of the pipeline would violate that
trust, a trust that had developed with much hard labour. ‘Accordingly, I respectfully request
that Resolution 14/2014 be rescinded or withdrawn. The transfer of IIW standards from
Route II to Route I should continue on a case-by-case basis with the agreement of the IIW
unit concerned.’
Lobinger responded quickly to Kotecki’s letter by indicating that he did not attend
the meeting concerned and expressed some degree of understanding of the case made by
Kotecki. However, it would not be possible, by his own authority, to rescind or withdraw
the resolution.
58
Lobinger then proposed to Kotecki that he would organise a meeting with
relevant people to resolve the matter and the level of frustration rose. The resolution was
also discussed at theWG-STAND meeting in Paris and further dissatisfaction was expressed
that the resolution had not been discussed with IIW delegates beforehand nor had it been
included in the agenda for the ISO/TC 44 meetings in Tokyo.
59
This resulted in a letter to the Chair of ISO/TC 44 by the IIW CEO,
Dr-Ing. Cécile Mayer, which clarified IIW’s position as far as IIW was
concerned. In this letter it was further emphasised that IIW was strongly
opposed to any change in the current agreement between IIW and the ISO
Council. The proposal to cancel Route II as an option for the development of
ISO standards within IIW was not raised before the meetings in Tokyo, nor
was it on the agenda for discussion at the Coordination Committee, or ISO/
TC 44 meetings. Consequently, neither IIW nor its delegations were able to
develop positions prior to these meetings.
60
Subsequently, a meeting of the Coordination Committee was held in Paris with
representatives of CEN/TC 121, ISO/TC 44 and IIW. During this meeting agreement was
reached between ISO and IIW to supersede the resolution that was approved in Tokyo.
It was decided that the agreement that had existed for more than 30 years between ISO
and IIW, which had been reviewed several times, should be confirmed as it was.
61
In
strengthening further the cause for objection by IIW of the ISO/TC 44 resolution it was
emphasised strongly that the recognition of IIW as a standardising body was granted by the
ISO Council and therefore ISO/TC 44 did not have the necessary authority to do otherwise
on its own account.
62
In due course a ballot on the questions regarding ISO/TC 44 Resolution 14/2014 was
conducted by CEN/TC 121 to resolve this issue at the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) meeting
in Helsinki. At the subsequent Plenary Meeting of ISO/TC 44 in Helsinki, the long-standing
relationship between IIW and ISO was formally ratified with a resolution superseding the
Tokyo resolution.
63
This new resolution was approved by the majority of members with
only the British Standards Institute voting negatively. Prof. Dr-Ing. Thomas Böllinghaus