QUESTIONNAIRE
Standards Development Organization
Assessment – for Development of an
Environmental Assessment of Servers Standard
SDO:
Prepared by:
IEEE
Pamela Brody-Heine/GEC (see
note below)
Email:
Date:
8/14/12
Phone:
Note: IEEE declined to fill out the questionnaire and provided the following statement:
“The IEEE-SA showed its desire to develop the Server standard when the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved the
P1680.4 PAR for the Server standard in 2010. Since EPEAT/GEC staff are officers of the EASC and the 1680.x
working groups and are familiar with the IEEE standards development process, we do not feel it necessary to
complete this questionnaire.
Should you complete the questionnaire on behalf of the IEEE, as you indicated you might do, please make it clear
that the IEEE did not provide, nor approve, the answers.”
Therefore, the following responses to questions were prepared by the GEC project team and have not been
reviewed or approved by IEEE staff. To the degree possible the responses are copied from IEEE procedural
documents. Certain other responses, as noted, are based on GEC project team experience with IEEE
processes.
Purpose
EPEAT is built upon American National Standards developed by the IEEE – the IEEE 1680 family of
standards. A representative leadership group of stakeholders is exploring options for development of the next
environmental standard which will address servers.
GEC personnel, acting with and on behalf of this stakeholder leadership group, are seeking interested from
SDOs to be considered for development of an environmental standard for servers. Interested applicants are
being asked to fill out this questionnaire, and potentially participate in an interview. Applicants will be evaluated,
and the SDO selection will be made, by the stakeholder leadership group.
Questionnaire
1) Ability of the SDO rules and procedures to ensure efficient standard development
Initiating a standard development process
1. How is a standard development activity initiated? What are the threshold requirements for
initiating standards development - e.g. request by member(s) of your organization, numbers of
interested parties in support, formal process required?
Page 1 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
Standards projects are started when there is a need for an idea or concept to be standardized. The idea or concept can
be broad or very specific. However, no standard is developed by one person alone; ultimately group collaboration
and consensus is required. This is where the sponsor comes into the picture. The sponsor is the organization that
assumes responsibility for a particular standards idea within IEEE. The sponsor provides technical oversight for the
standard. It also determines the scope and nature of the technical content. Sponsors for IEEE standards are
traditionally IEEE Societies and Committees. Standards Coordinating Committees (SCCs), the Corporate Advisory
Group, and even the Standards Board can be a sponsor as well.
Officially, a standards project does not exist until a PAR is approved. However, often the members of a potential
working group will have gathered to work on a PAR and to gain the support of their potential sponsor. This type of
gathering, known as a study group, can exist for up to six months before a PAR needs to be submitted. (Of course,
new PARs can be developed by existing working groups as additional projects as well.)
A PAR is a small, structured, and highly detailed document that essentially states the reason why the project exists
and what it intends to do. Many groups treat the PAR as their permission to move forward (which, in fact, it is).
(Excerpt from http://standards.ieee.org/develop/projstart.html)
2. Does your SDO create a preliminary draft standard, provide background research or a
preliminary review of relevant standards? If not, are stakeholders enabled to bring a draft
standard into the standards process?
No, IEEE does not create a preliminary draft standard, provide background research or a preliminary review of
relevant standards.
Stakeholders are enabled to bring draft recommendations to either a study group for the purpose of PAR
development or to the Working Group for inclusion in a draft standard.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
Page 2 of 12
Group processes
3. Describe the structure and required steps of your standards development process in the table below. Please list all stakeholder
bodies utilized in your SDO (e.g. Working Group, Balloting Group, subgroup, etc,) and provide the associated information for
each body.
Stakehol
der
Body(ies
)
(provide
list)
Study
Group
Describe how is Membership Constituted?
(Appointed or open? Limited in size? If open, does
membership close at some point?)
A Study Group is formed as a subgroup of the Sponsor,
and is subject to all relevant operating procedures
concerning subgroups of the Sponsor and its parent
bodies, including the IEEE-SA Standards Board (IEEESASB).
A Study Group will have a Chair, appointed by the
Sponsor.
(Excerpt from
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/studygrp.pdf
)
As soon as practical after formation of the Study Group,
the Chair shall distribute a call for participation in the
Study Group. The call should be distributed both within
Sponsor channels and through other means at the
disposal of the Sponsor to ensure materially interested
parties have the opportunity to participate.
Working
(Excerpt from
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/studygrp.pdf
)
Working Groups are open groups. They are comprised
of individuals for individual standards projects or
representatives from entities (such as corporations,
government agencies or academic institutions) for
corporate standards projects. All participating in
Scope and
Responsibilities? Typical
time/resource
commitment required?
The purpose of the Study
Group is:
1. To determine whether
sufficient interest and
resources exist to
develop an IEEE draft
standard, and
2. If so, to develop a
draft PAR for the
proposed project.
Defined as
the
Consensus
Body1 by
ANSI?
(yes/no)
No
Voting Threshold (definition of
consensus)? (%)
Recommended that at least 5
individuals participate in any vote for it
to be valid, and that each vote is
approved by a 75% approval vote of
those present and voting either
"approve" or "disapprove".
(Excerpt from
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpc
han/studygrp.pdf)
(Excerpt from
http://standards.ieee.org/d
evelop/corpchan/studygrp.
pdf)
The Working Group
organizes to prepare and
develop the standard.
No
Current EASC WG P&Ps – 75%
Draft updated EASC WG P&Ps –
66.7%
(Excerpt from IEEE
1
Per ANSI essential requirements, the Consensus Body is the body or bodies that make key standards decisions and to which all ANSI Essential Requirements
are strictly applied.
Page 3 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
Group
working groups have technical expertise, knowledge and
dedicated interest in the technology being standardized
in the standard.
myTools)
Working Groups meet and make technical decisions in
the process of developing standards. Those participating
in working groups have strong technical knowledge and
expertise in the subject matter of the standard project,
and understand and respect diverse points of view.
Individuals and corporations in working groups work
collaboratively to reach consensus in order to move the
project to sponsor ballot and ultimately IEEE Standards
Board approval.
Balloting
Group
Excerpt from
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/participate.html
IEEE Standards balloting groups shall be formed by
means of ballot invitations conducted by the IEEE
Standards Balloting Center. A ballot invitation is sent to
all parties known by the Sponsor to be interested in the
subject matter of the proposed standard. Information
about IEEE Standards Sponsor ballot invitations shall
also be made available at the IEEE Standards website to
allow additional interested parties the opportunity to
participate.
Ballot invitations shall remain open for a period of no
less than 15 days. Those who respond affirmatively to
the invitation during the period in which the ballot
invitation is open and who otherwise fulfill the criteria
in both subclause 5.2.2.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Bylaws and 5.4.1 shall become members of the
balloting group for that proposed standard. If a ballot
does not open within 6 months of the invitation close
date, the ballot group will be considered invalid and the
Sponsor shall conduct a new invitation. Once the ballot
has begun, no changes shall be made to the membership
of the balloting group.
The standards balloting
process consists of
Sponsor balloting group
members casting votes,
with or without
accompanying comments,
in one or more successive
ballots until completion of
the standards balloting
process. Sponsor balloting
group members shall
submit votes and
comments in a manner and
in a format compatible
with approved IEEE
Standards Association
balloting tools.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA
Standards Board
Operations Manual
subclause 5.4.3
http://standards.ieee.org/d
evelop/policies/opman/sect
Page 4 of 12
Yes
75%
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations
Manual subclause 5.4.2
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.h
tml)
5.html)
Page 5 of 12
4. Do you limit the time involved in any phase of the development of a standard?
Study Group - a study group, can exist for up to six months before a PAR needs to be submitted
(Excerpt from http://standards.ieee.org/develop/projstart.html)
Working Group and Balloting Phases - If a standards project has not been completed by the four-year deadline
authorized in the PAR and the Sponsor determines that the project should remain active, the Sponsor shall complete
the IEEE-SA Standards Board Extension Request Form and submit it to the NesCom Administrator. NesCom will
make a recommendation to the IEEE-SA Standards Board whether or not to approve the extension to the PAR. A
PAR extension may be granted for one or more years.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.2
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.html)
5. How do you enable international participation and mange meetings across multiple time zones
and languages?
No specific information found.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
6. Do you have baseline policies and procedures that all groups must follow? To what extent can
these baseline policies and procedures be modified by groups?
The Sponsor shall be responsible for the development and coordination of the standards project, and for supervising
the standards project from inception to completion. The Sponsor also shall be responsible for the maintenance of the
standards after their approval by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. As part of this responsibility, each Sponsor shall
operate in accordance with a written set of policies and procedures (P & P) that have been accepted by the IEEE-SA
Standards Board. Such P & P shall not be in conflict with the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual.
Sponsors should note that there are model operating procedures (e.g., individual, entity, SCC Type 1, or SCC Type 2)
available for use by the Sponsor.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.1.1
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.html)
If a Working Group (WG) was created for technical development work on a standard, ensure that a written set of WG
policies and procedures (P & P) is created and approved by the Sponsor. Such P & P shall not be in conflict with the
IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. Sponsors should note that IEEE-SA Standards Board maintains a
baseline WG P & P, and may occasionally request to review a Sponsor's WG P & P for alignment.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.1.2
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.html)
7. Is 2/3 approval by the Consensus Body sufficient to approve a standard?
Page 6 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
No. Note that the Consensus Body in IEEE is the balloting group.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
A minimum of 75% of those voting Approve or Do Not Approve (Negative with comment) must approve the draft in
order to submit the ballot result to the IEEE-SA Standards Board.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.4.3.5
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.html)
2) Ability of the SDO rules and procedures to effectively ensure that the consensus
body represents a balanced group of stakeholders
8. Please provide your specific policies on stakeholder balance and an overview of the methods
you use to ensure and enforce balance requirements?
Balloters are required to classify their relationship to the balloting group relative to the scope of standards activity
(for example, producer, user, and general interest). Where appropriate, additional classifications, such as "testing
laboratory" or "academic," may be added by the Sponsor. This decision should be based on the effect the standard
may have on participants not already recognized by the primary classifications. Individuals classify themselves based
on their technical background, which may be related to their employment, job functions, or experience. IEEE-SA
entity balloters are classified based on their entity interest as it relates to the scope of the standards project (for
example, producer, consumer, general interest). No single classification (interest category) is permitted to constitute
more than one-third of the balloting group membership. Care shall be taken to ensure that all classes of interest are
represented to the extent possible.
It is desirable to have representation of the materially interested and affected parties when reviewing the balance of
the balloting group. Sponsors shall ensure balance prior to conducting a Sponsor ballot. Balloting groups of
individuals should have at least 10 members to ensure adequate balance.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.4.1
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.html#balance)
In the negotiation with IEEE regarding the sponsor P&Ps it was stated by IEEE AudComm that the SASB, not the
sponsor committee (EASC), holds authority to take action to protect balance in the balloting group. The approved
sponsor P&Ps read as follows:
The EASC shall review the ballot group for balance and possible dominance before balloting begins. If it is
determined that the ballot group may be dominated (as evidenced by an unduly high proportion of individuals
employed by or affiliated with a single entity or from a particular balloting classification), the EASC shall
recommend remedial actions to the IEEE-SA Standards Board to ensure a fair and open ballot. Such remedial
actions may include:
- Evaluating the interest category classification of balloters and addressing any inaccuracies
- Recruiting additional balloters to join the balloting group from other non dominant interest categories,
- Limiting the number of balloters per organization
- Other options as appropriate.
(Approved EASC P&Ps, section 8.)
(Response provided by GEC project team)
9. Do you limit voting membership in a Consensus Body? If so, how?
Page 7 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
Interested or affected persons who pay the appropriate fees associated with voting privileges may join the balloting
group for a specific standards project. Once the ballot has begun, the balloting group is closed to additional
participants.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.4.1
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.html)
The balloting group shall consist of persons who are members of the IEEE-SA [Note: The balloting group may also
include non-IEEE-SA members that pay the appropriate per-ballot fee (see subclause 5.4.1 of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Operations Manual)].
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.2.2.3
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect5.html#5.2.2.3)
10. How are conflicts between openness and balance managed if a stakeholder category attempts
to dominate the Consensus Body?
See response to Question #8.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
3) Ability of the SDO rules and procedures to effectively ensure that a single interest
group cannot block action or dominate the voting
11. Please provide your specific policies on stakeholder balance and an overview of the methods
you use to ensure and enforce balance requirements?
This is addressed through procedures outlined in the Sponsor and Working Group P&Ps.
For Sponsor P&Ps, relative to the balloting group see response to Question #8.
For Working Group voting the following is from the draft Working Group P&Ps which are not yet approved by the
IEEE:
The working group Chair or Co-Chairs may appoint a voting member, hold the application pending further
information, reject an application, or take other such action as deemed necessary. Appointment shall be based on:
1) Maintaining a balance of stakeholder category representation within the membership.
(And further) Balance is considered achieved if no single interest category constitutes more than one third of the
membership of the working group.
Please note, however, the IEEE AudComm has requested removal of these provisions for balance of stakeholder
categories as a requirement working group membership since they desire that working groups be open to all.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
12. Do you have processes to prevent a minority from frustrating the wishes of the majority? If yes,
please describe.
Page 8 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
The Chair, Co-Chairs or designee shall: Determine if the working group is dominated by an affiliate block
(stakeholder group, organization, company, consortium, special interest group, etc.) and if so work with the EASC
Co-Chairs to take corrective action
(excerpt from draft WG P&Ps submitted to IEEE; section 6.5.1)
4) The lack of financial barriers to participate
13. Are there fees or other conditions (e.g. organizational membership) to join the Consensus
Body or participate in any way?
Balloting Group. Interested or affected persons who pay the appropriate fees associated with voting privileges may
join the balloting group for a specific standards project. Once the ballot has begun, the balloting group is closed to
additional participants.
(Excerpt from IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual subclause 5.4.1
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect5.html)
14. Are there fees for services offered in questions #17 & 18 (in section 5 below)? If yes, please
explain.
None. The IEEE does not provide facilitation, however they do provide support and use of the web site for balloting,
document storage and other communication services.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
15. Are there fees for other services you provide during the process?
None.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
16. What is generally the cost to purchase a finalized standard?
IEEE 1680-2009 - $69
IEEE 1680.1-2009 - $74
IEEE P1680.2/D7, May 2012 - DRAFT - $93
IEEE P1680.3/D7, May 2012 - DRAFT - $72
5) Processes that use trained facilitators and group leaders and that provide good
technical and process support for the questions being addressed by stakeholders
Page 9 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
17. What facilitation, management, technical and other support services for the standards
development process do you provide?
IEEE provides a variety of tools to support standards development such as:



myProject balloting system
website for posting/sharing documents (grouper.ieee.org)
Meeting Attendance Tool (IMAT)
(Response provided by GEC project team)
18. Do you have training for facilitators and group leaders or for all stakeholders?
None known.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
6) Compatibility of processes with the development of an environmental leadership
standard, including approach to commercial terms
19. Has your organization developed environmental leadership standards, or other standards
intended to incentivize leadership by defining attributes that only the best products achieve? If
yes, please describe.
1680 Family of Standards. Certain other IEEE standards and/or standards processes do address technical issues
related to environmental leadership of products, such as a document schema for repair of products.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
20. Has your organization addressed the issue of inclusion of commercial terms in a standard, as
prohibited by ANSI, and, if so, how has this been addressed?
Page 10 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
IEEE has adopted ANSI Commercial Terms Policy (ANSI Essential Requirements, clause 3.2):
3.2 Commercial terms and conditions
Provisions involving business relations between buyer and seller such as guarantees, warranties, and other
commercial terms and conditions shall not be included in an American National Standard. The appearance
that a standard endorses any particular products, services or companies must be avoided. Therefore, it
generally is not acceptable to include manufacturer lists, service provider lists, or similar material in the text
of a standard or in an annex (or the equivalent). Where a sole source exists for essential equipment,
materials or services necessary to comply with or to determine compliance with the standard, it is
permissible to supply the name and address of the source in a footnote or informative annex as long as the
words “or the equivalent” are added to the reference. In connection with standards that relate to the
determination of whether products or services conform to one or more standards, the process or criteria for
determining conformity can be standardized as long as the description of the process or criteria is limited to
technical and engineering concerns and does not include what would otherwise be a commercial term.
The EASC also received the following guidance from IEEE - four points on “commercial terms”:

If it deals with any aspect of price or a pricing mechanism, it is a commercial term.

If it mandates that a manufacturer offer a warranty, or deals with warranty terms (such as duration), it is a
commercial term.

If it mandates the length of time that spare parts must be available, it is a commercial term.

If it deals with a physical attribute of a compliant product, it is highly unlikely to be a commercial term.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
7) A willingness to work with us and a practical way to move our standards process to
the new SDO option
21. Our stakeholders have extensively evaluated our procedures and have strong preferences.
How much flexibility is there in accommodating stakeholder procedure preferences?
Refer to EASC process to develop updated Working Group Policies and Procedures. The EASC is in active
negotiation with the AudComm to obtain flexibility on items related to balance and working group membership.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
22. Would you consider developing a non-ANSI-accredited standards process, if deemed
necessary to meet our stakeholder concerns?
Not known.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
23. If we formed a partnership agreement in standard development, would you consider co-owning
the IP of a standard with the Green Electronics Council?
Page 11 of 12
SDO Assessment Questionnaire
Not known. However, IEEE has a procedure for “cooperation” including “adoption, revision, and joint
development”, and use of a “duel logo” with IEC.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
24. Has your organization been involved in a transfer of standard(s) from another SDO? If yes,
please describe.
Not known regarding “transfer”.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
25. What do you consider the strengths and weaknesses of the SDO process you use?
It is not known what IEEE considers the strengths and weaknesses of their process.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
26. Can you ensure staff support that is neutral to different stakeholder interests and positions?
Staff support provided by IEEE is dedicated to objective and neutral implementation of the IEEE policies and
procedures under the oversight of the IEEE committee structure.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
8) Credibility and track record of the SDO in developing standards and adoption of
their standards
27. What is your success rate in finalizing standards?
Not known.
(Response provided by GEC project team)
28. What is your average time to develop a standard?
The average is not known. Some complex standards processes are known to go on for several years.
1680.2 and 1680.3 have taken 3.5 to 4 years from initiation to publication (assumes publication this fall).
(Response provided by GEC project team)
Page 12 of 12