<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Nikhil, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see my responses to the your questions below. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1a. Is there a public consultation requirement for TCs output, and if so, is it at the TC leadership level or at the ISO management level and at what stage of the processes? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">At the DIS (Draft International Standard) ballot phase, the document is open for ballot to all ISO members (not just TC members) who may also submit comments. As always in the ISO process, all submitted comments
are responded to. ISO documents are not open to review or comment by those outside the ISO system.</span><br>
<br>
1b. Or rather, any such public consultation requirement is for the national participant bodies? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">That is a decision of the National Member Body. I suggest that you contact BIS, the Bureau of Indian Standards, for information on how the process works in India.
</span><br>
<br>
1c. Is there any "code of conduct" for the liaison members of the TC, particularly in regard to making public their stance on the ISO process, their inputs, and their standing on the results? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">Liaison organizations follow the ISO Directives. The comments submitted to a TC by a liaison are circulated to all members of the TC. These, like all other TC documents, are not available to non-members of the
TC. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
2a. What are the rules for admitting "liaison" organizations? Are they admitted by consensus of the TC national membership or by ISO management or TC management?<span style="color:red"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:red">Liaisons are established via TC resolution or ballot. For further information, please see clause 1.17 of the attached ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">2b. In particular, is there a specific charter of engagement by
<span style="font-size:9.5pt">GACC, Gold Standard Foundation, WHO, WLPGA, Unicef, and ICCI, none of whom have any prior experience in actual "cookstove performance", nor design, manufacture and sales, leave alone testing and national standards (at most re-circulating
secondary and tertiary literature)? This is particularly relevant to the issue of PM2.5 emissions performance of representative stoves, or testing and standards including the US. (Earlier national cookstove efforts used TSP or PM10 measurements, but the IWA
seems to have suddenly taken on a PM2.5 hourly average emission rate, in turn leading to WHO "Guidelines".) I hold that none of these organizations have a legitimate role in the TC 285 process and that their influence taints the TC 285 results and carries
reputational risks for ISO and national participants. (I excluded the World Bank because it has actively promoted design and promotion of alternative solid fuel cookstoves for some 30 years, with the explicit agreement of client governments; has made public
evaluations according to prevalent disclosure policies; and has no vested interests in specific designs, protocols, or standards. This cannot be said of any of the other organizations whose legitimacy is in question.) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">The liaisons of TC 285 were approved by the membership of TC 285.
<br>
</span>3a. What are the contractual bases for involvement by the US - of which you are the national body - considering that US does not have any Federal standards for cookstoves or any Federally certified cookstoves testing procedures or laboratory? (These
contracts may be between ISO and ANSI, ANSI and GACC, ANSI or GACC with US Government or its independent agencies, or any combination or cross/joint contracting.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">The US has interested parties who wish to participate in Cookstoves, therefore a National Committee was established so that the US could participate in TC 285.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3b. What are the time limits for USG and ANSI involvement in the TC process on cookstoves, and is there room to invoke the need for a refreshed mandate? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">ANSI will be represented in TC 285 for as long as there is interest from the US stakeholders on the National Committee. I cannot comment on USG intentions.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Sally
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 04, 2017 5:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sally Seitz <SSeitz@ansi.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao@gmail.com>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>; Dr. Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@comcast.net>; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott@outlook.com>; Neeraja Penumetcha <npenumetcha@cleancookstoves.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> ISO processes and procedures (Re: Seitz, Brandao)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Ms. Seitz: (Pardon me for changing the subject title) <br>
<br>
Thank you so much for clarifying that the IWA and TC rules are different. If you don't mind, could you please let us know (or guide to other resources) for the following questions: <br>
<br>
(My sole concern here is with solid fuel household cookstoves, not other varieties).<br>
<br>
1a. Is there a public consultation requirement for TCs output, and if so, is it at the TC leadership level or at the ISO management level and at what stage of the processes? <br>
<br>
1b. Or rather, any such public consultation requirement is for the national participant bodies? <br>
<br>
1c. Is there any "code of conduct" for the liaison members of the TC, particularly in regard to making public their stance on the ISO process, their inputs, and their standing on the results? <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
2a. What are the rules for admitting "liaison" organizations? Are they admitted by consensus of the TC national membership or by ISO management or TC management? <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2b. In particular, is there a specific charter of engagement by
<span style="font-size:9.5pt">GACC, Gold Standard Foundation, WHO, WLPGA, Unicef, and ICCI, none of whom have any prior experience in actual "cookstove performance", nor design, manufacture and sales, leave alone testing and national standards (at most re-circulating
secondary and tertiary literature)? This is particularly relevant to the issue of PM2.5 emissions performance of representative stoves, or testing and standards including the US. (Earlier national cookstove efforts used TSP or PM10 measurements, but the IWA
seems to have suddenly taken on a PM2.5 hourly average emission rate, in turn leading to WHO "Guidelines".) I hold that none of these organizations have a legitimate role in the TC 285 process and that their influence taints the TC 285 results and carries
reputational risks for ISO and national participants. (I excluded the World Bank because it has actively promoted design and promotion of alternative solid fuel cookstoves for some 30 years, with the explicit agreement of client governments; has made public
evaluations according to prevalent disclosure policies; and has no vested interests in specific designs, protocols, or standards. This cannot be said of any of the other organizations whose legitimacy is in question.) <br>
</span><br>
3a. What are the contractual bases for involvement by the US - of which you are the national body - considering that US does not have any Federal standards for cookstoves or any Federally certified cookstoves testing procedures or laboratory? (These contracts
may be between ISO and ANSI, ANSI and GACC, ANSI or GACC with US Government or its independent agencies, or any combination or cross/joint contracting.)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3b. What are the time limits for USG and ANSI involvement in the TC process on cookstoves, and is there room to invoke the need for a refreshed mandate? <br>
<br>
I am a Citizen of India, if that is any consideration for ANSI in answering these questions. If my standing or qualifications are in question, please feel free to ask. For now, I can state I am working on revisiting some earlier work on modern cooking and have
been engaged as an analyst or advisor on many areas of energy and environmental policies in US and overseas. <br>
<br>
Many thanks in advance, and best wishes, <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nikhil<br>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Nikhil Desai</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">(US +1) 202 568 5831<br>
<i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sally Seitz <<a href="mailto:SSeitz@ansi.org" target="_blank">SSeitz@ansi.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hello everyone,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I would like to point out that the presentation to which you refer was for the IWA which took place
prior to the formation of ISO TC 285. ISO rules are different for an IWA – any interested party may attend an IWA meeting and participation is not limited to National Member Bodies or liaison. The rules are different for participation in ISO Technical and
Subcommittees. Participation in ISO TCs and SCs is limited to National Bodies and liaison organizations, and participation includes both offering comments on drafts and attending meetings.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I do hope this clarification helps.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kind regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Sally
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Xavier Brandao [mailto:<a href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com" target="_blank">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 02, 2017 5:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ndesai@alum.mit.edu" target="_blank">ndesai@alum.mit.edu</a>; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Dr. Ronal Larson <<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>>; 'Crispin Pemberton-Pigott' <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>>; Neeraja Penumetcha
<<a href="mailto:npenumetcha@cleancookstoves.org" target="_blank">npenumetcha@cleancookstoves.org</a>>; Sally Seitz <<a href="mailto:SSeitz@ansi.org" target="_blank">SSeitz@ansi.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dear Nikhil,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR">« Taking her word, what Ms. Seitz seems to be suggesting is that "opposition to substantial issues" can be expressed by "concerned interests", not necessarily limited
to National Standards Bodies that participate in the ISO process, and that the ISO process at least has an obligation to seek to take into account (read that bureaucratese anywhich way you wish) "the views of all parties concerned). »</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">OK, I didn’t know that, thanks for sharing the information, I’ll have a look at it.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR">« I am afraid there is no "We". Despite GACC and World Bank claims about "stove sector" or "improved and clean cooking sector", there is no official stamp on any
testing protocol. »</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I am for cooperation rather than division. I think a lot can be worked out by discussion.</span><span lang="FR"><br>
</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
Xavier </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span lang="FR" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">De :</span></b><span lang="FR" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> Nikhil Desai
[<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> samedi 2 septembre 2017 04:20<br>
<b>À :</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Xavier Brandao<br>
<b>Cc :</b> Ronal W. Larson; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Neeraja Penumetcha; Sally Seitz<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR">I Xavier:<br>
<br>
1. ISO is not the only body developing "standards". All national standards institutions develop and revise standards, and private organizations also devise standards to be voluntarily accepted. Why, just a few days ago, the Gold Standard Foundation calls itself
a "<a href="https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/who-we-are" target="_blank">standard and certification body</a>" has floated
<a href="http://Gold%20Standard%20for%20the%20Global%20Goals" target="_blank">Gold Standard for Global Goals</a>, for "</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">future-proof Gold Standard projects for changing
market conditions, including the emerging rules of the Paris Agreement and the aviation sector’s new market mechanism CORSIA, as well as broader trends in corporate sustainability and climate and development funding."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959"><br>
</span><span lang="FR">CDM and Gold Standard use of WBT, or any protocol for any metric that it purports to but does not directly measure, are as important at this stage as anything that develops out of the ISO TC-285. I don't know how many countries with what
market type and size would incorporate "international" standards in domestic law and have the capacity to enforce them. We know EPA will not, and that's that. Why EPA is indirectly - via GACC and ANSI - is leading the TC-285 exercise is not exactly a mystery,
just not out in the open. (Ms. Penumetcha or Ms. Seitz, cc'd here, may want to share ANSI contract scope of work with US Government or its agencies and theirs with ISO.) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="FR">2. You ought to read Ms. Seitz' presentation at the IWA. She said: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR">a. An international standard is characterized by ""<b>consensus</b>: General agreement, characterized by the
<u>absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.</u> (emphasis
added) and</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR">b. A Standard, inter alia, "provides governments with a technical base for health, safety and environmental legislation, and conformity assessment" and "shares technological
advances and good management practice"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR">Taking her word, what Ms. Seitz seems to be suggesting is that "opposition to substantial issues" can be expressed by "concerned interests", not necessarily limited
to National Standards Bodies that participate in the ISO process, and that the ISO process at least has an obligation to seek to take into account (read that bureaucratese anywhich way you wish) "the views of all parties concerned). <br>
<br>
Therefore, I suggest that you prepare a document to be sent directly to Ms. Seitz and Ms. Penumetcha (as GACC is officially contracted with ISO and perhaps the US Government). I see no problem in requesting them to not only dump WBT for reasons that you have
raised but officially acknowledge its limits. I think it is entirely permissible to write this in your personal capacity, and you could share it with this group. Those from this group, in their individual capacities, may endorse a petition. <br>
<br>
Such an effort can also be taken to the D-Lab convenors at MIT for their limited and short-sighted version of stove science progress. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR">Your view is</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">"</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">We
have to take the time. To take the time to do the right thing, to correct the past mistakes, to move forward, we have to take the time to stop wasting time."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"><br>
Just as I said to Crispin that "There is no there there" in Kirk Smith, et al. GBD estimates or worse still, HAPIT, I am afraid there is no "We". Despite GACC and World Bank claims about "stove sector" or "improved and clean cooking sector", there is no official
stamp on any testing protocol. <br>
<br>
Yes, this applies to WBT in the US. I am not aware of any Federal Register entry that designates WBT - or those who claim to test according to WBT - as "certified" measure or entity respectively. <br>
<br>
Wherefore, anybody who has been damaged by the use of WBT is entitled to bring a claim in a US Federal court for relief against false claims or other torts. <br>
<br>
US claims to be a nation of laws. So US entities are bound by legal agreements. <br>
<br>
Nikhil</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Nikhil Desai</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="FR" style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">(US
<a href="tel:(202)%20568-5831" target="_blank">+1) 202 568 5831</a><br>
<i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="FR"><br>
______________________________________________________________________<br>
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.<br>
For more information please visit <a href="http://www.symanteccloud.com" target="_blank">
http://www.symanteccloud.com</a><br>
______________________________________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
______________________________________________________________________<br>
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.<br>
For more information please visit <a href="http://www.symanteccloud.com">http://www.symanteccloud.com</a><br>
______________________________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>