IIW History 1990-2015

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 ‘Accordingly, I respectfully request that Resolution 14/2014 be rescinded or withdrawn.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

SETTING THE STANDARD