Agenda Topic -- ANSI's Essential Requirements for Conflict and
Duplication

**[Background]{.underline}**

At the ANSI Executive Standards Council (ExSC) meeting on May 23rd,
there was another discussion of the ANSI Essential Requirements for
Conflict and Duplication and the ANSI National Policy Committee's (NPC)
requested word change. At the March 2007 NPC meeting, members had
discussed their concerns with respect to the use of could versus would
in the proposed document, ExSC 6646. The NPC members, who were present,
supported the remainder of the proposal and isolated their concerns to
this one word usage. The proposal with the single change from \"could\"
to \"would\" will be published in the near future by ANSI for public
comment. Two ICSP members have proposed that this issue be discussed at
the next ICSP meeting because the change of that one word makes a
significant change in the definition of \"conflict.\" \
\
The initial wording proposed by the ExSC was:\
\
**2**.**4 Coordination and harmonization\
**Good faith efforts shall be made to resolve potential conflicts
between and among existing American National Standards and candidate
American National Standards.\
\
[2.4.1   Definition of Conflict]{.underline}

> Conflict within the ANS process refers to a situation where, viewed
> from the perspective of a future implementer, the terms of one
> standard are inconsistent or incompatible with the terms of the other
> standard such that implementation of one standard under terms
> allowable under that standard **[could (NPC proposed that this be
> changed to would)]{.underline}** preclude proper implementation of the
> other standard in accordance with its terms. 
>
> 2.4.2 Coordination/Harmonization\
> ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers shall make a good-faith effort to
> resolve potential conflicts and to coordinate standardization
> activities intended to result in harmonized American National
> Standards\.....\
> \
> An example of a case where this change becomes a problem is as
> follows:\
> \
> Standard 1 allows a manufacturer to use either a three pronged plug or
> a two pronged plug to meet the requirements of the standard 1. Both
> options are acceptable.  Standard 2 only allows the use of a three
> pronged plug.  The use of a two pronged plug is not acceptable.  If
> the word \"would\" is used (instead of \"could\"), then these
> standards do not conflict; and no good faith efforts are required to
> resolve the issue. A three pronged plug would satisfy both standards,
> and there "would" not be a conflict.\
> \
> If the word \"could\" is used, then there is a conflict; and good
> faith efforts are required to resolve the issue.  There \"could\" be a
> conflict if a manufacturer had chosen to use the two pronged plug
> option to comply with Standard 1, and must now comply with Standard 2
> where this option is not acceptable.  A manufacturer, who has chosen
> to use the two pronged plug to comply with Standard 1, and is now
> faced with a marketplace or regulatory requirement to also comply with
> Standard 2, cannot comply with Standard 2 w/o product
> modifications/retooling.  There is a conflict between those two
> standards for such a manufacturer, although the use of the word
> \"would\" excludes it from the definition of conflict.  A change from
> \"could\" to \"would\" means that the developers of Standards 1 and 2
> are under no obligation to try to resolve this problem.\
> \
> If the use of the word \"would\" is desirable for whatever reason, AND
> you add the word \"any\" in front of terms,  this situation is now
> included in the definition of a conflict. This means that there must
> be an attempt to resolve the problem via \"good faith\" efforts by the
> two standards developers.  The wording of the definition would be:\
> \
> 2.4.1 Definition of Conflict\
> Conflict within the ANS process refers to a situation where, viewed
> from the perspective of a future implementer, the terms of one
> standard are inconsistent or incompatible with the terms of the other
> standard such that implementation of one standard under
> **[ANY]{.underline}** terms allowable under that standard
> **[would]{.underline}** preclude proper implementation of the other
> standard in accordance with its terms. 

**[Recommendation\
]{.underline}**

If the ICSP feels that such a situation should be included within the
definition of "conflict," then it is recommended that the definition of
"conflict" **[either]{.underline}** uses the word "could\" OR
incorporates \"any\" in front of the word \"terms\" if \"would\" is
used. 

Note that phrase "viewed from the perspective of a future implementer"
could be interpreted as a future implementer of one (already an
implementer of one) or a future implementer of both. Clarification might
be useful.

**[Action]{.underline}**

**[If]{.underline}** the ICSP feels that this is a significant issue, a
response will be prepared on the ICSP's behalf and forwarded to ANSI.