From Diplomatic Standards
CPD Working Group
Category: Current Practices of DSC
Status: Draft Diplomatic Standard
DIS A100 CPD 001
Status Description: Draft
This document describes Best Current Practices of the Diplomatic Standards Community and requests suggestions and discourses for improvements. Distribution of this document is unlimited.
Abstract
This document describes the process used by the Diplomatic Standards Community (DSC) for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between levels and the types of documents used during this process. It also addresses the intellectual property rights and copyright issues associated with the standards' process.
[edit] Introduction
The Diplomatic Goods' Standards Process, shortened Diplomatic Standards, described in this document is concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are used in or by Diplomatic Goods. The Diplomatic Goods' Standards Process applies to the application of the protocol or procedure in the development of standards' context, not to the specification of the directive or standard itself. In general, a Standard is a directive or specification that is stable and well-understood, has multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the post industrial food community.
[edit] The Diplomatic Goods Standards Process
In practice, the process of creating a Diplomatic Goods Standard is straightforward: a specification, protocol or process undergoes a period of development and several iterations of review by the Diplomatic Goods' community and revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body, and is published. However, in preceding forward with setting the process in practice, it has been proven to be more complicated, due to (1) the difficulty of creating specifications of high quality; (2) the need to consider the interests of all of the affected parties; (3) the importance of establishing widespread community consensus; and (4) the difficulty of evaluating the utility of a particular specification for the community.
In that light, the goals of the Diplomatic Goods' Standards Process have been defined to include;
- Open Meeting Consensus
- Due Process
- Open Intellectual Property
- One World
- Open Change
- Open Documents
- Open Interface
- Open Use
- On-going Support
The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, open, and objective; to reflect planned and proven practice; and to be flexible.These procedures are intended to provide a fair, open, and objective basis for developing, evaluating, and adopting Diplomatic Standards.The process aims at providing the opportunity necessary for participation and commenting by all interested parties. At each stage of the standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic platforms, and it is made available for review via the Diplomatic Standards' platform.These procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting generally-accepted practices. Thus, a candidate specification must be implemented and tested for correct operation and interoperability preferably by multiple independent parties and utilized in increasingly demanding environments, before it can be adopted as a Diplomatic Goods Standard.
These procedures provide a great deal of flexibility to adapt to the wide variety of circumstances that occur in the standardization process.
[edit] Publications
[edit] Discourses (DIS)
Each distinct version of a Diplomatic Standard's related specification is published as part of a 'Discourse' (DIS) document series. This archival series is the official publication channel for Diplomatic Standards documents.
The status of any specification or standard is summarized periodically in a DIS entitled "Diplomatic Standards". This DIS shows the level of maturity and other helpful information for each specification. Some DISs document Diplomatic Standards. These DISs form the 'DGST' sub-series of the DIS series. When a specification has been adopted as a Diplomatic Standard, it is given the additional label "DGSTxxx", but it keeps its DIS number and its place in the DIS series.
Some DISs standardize the results of community deliberations about statements of principle or conclusions about what is the best way to perform some operations or Diplomatic Goods process function. These DISs form the specifications that will be adopted as a CPD, Current Practices of Diplomatic Goods, it is given the additional label "CPDxxx", but it keeps its DIS number and its place in the DIS series.
Not all specifications of protocols or services for the Organic Industry should or will become Diplomatic Standards (DGST) or Current Practices of Diplomatic Goods (CPD). These non-standards will track specifications that are not subject to the regulations of post industrial food standardization. Non-standards specifications may be published directly as "Experimental" or "Informational" DISs at the discretion of the DIS Director.
[edit]
Maturity Levels
Specifications and directives that are intended to become Diplomatic Standards evolve through a set of maturity levels. These maturity levels, "Draft Discourses", "Proposed Diplomatic Standard", "Draft Diplomatic Standard", and "Diplomatic Standard" are defines in the sections below including the way in which specifications move along the maturity levels. Evolution through the maturity levels may occur - through recognition of new requirements etc. -- even after a specification has been adopted as a Diplomatic Standard.
[edit] Draft Discourses
During the development of a directive or specification, draft versions of the document are made available for informal review and comment by placing them in the Diplomatic Goods Drafts directory, facilitating the process of review and revision by the community at large and any wishful participant. A Draft that is published and that has remained unchanged in the Draft directory for more than six months without being recommended by the Directing Bodies for publication as a formal DIS, at any time can be simply removed from the Draft directory. Or it may be replaced by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.
A Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" or "finalizing" a specification. Specifications or directives are published through the DIS process described in the previous section. Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time.
[edit]
Proposed Diplomatic Standards
The entry-level maturity for a standards is "Proposed Diplomatic Standard". A specific action by the Directing Bodies is required to move a specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Diplomatic Standard" level.
A Proposed Diplomatic Standard directive is generally stable, has resolved known dispute choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. However, further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the specification before it advances. Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Diplomatic Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Diplomatic Standard designation.
The Directing Bodies may require implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed Diplomatic Standard status to a Discourse that materially affects major understood principles in the post industrial food sector or that specifies behavior that may have significant operational deviation in the community.
Implementers and farmers should treat Proposed Diplomatic Standards as immature specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. However, since the content of Proposed Diplomatic Standards may be changed if problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying implementations of such standards is not recommended.
[edit] Draft Diplomatic Standards
Preferably, a specification from which at least two independent, interoperable implementations from different implementers have been developed, and for which sufficient successful operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Diplomatic Standard" level. Elevation to Draft Diplomatic Standard is a major advance in status, indicating a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.
In cases in which one or more options or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable implementations, the specification or process may advance to the Draft Diplomatic Standard level only if those options or features are removed.
The Working Group chair persons are responsible for documenting and gathering the specific implementations' specifications which qualify the specification for Draft or Diplomatic Standard status. The documentation must include information about the support of each of the individual options and features. This documentation should be submitted to the Directing Bodies with the actions requested.
A Draft Diplomatic Standard must be well-understood and known to be quite stable. A Draft Diplomatic Standard may still require additional or more widespread field experiences, since it is possible for implementations based on Draft Diplomatic Standard specifications to demonstrate unforeseen behaviors when subjected to large-scale use in production environments.
A Draft Diplomatic Standard is normally considered to be a final specification, and changes are likely to be made only to solve specific problems encountered.
[edit]
Diplomatic Standards
A specification for which significant implementation and successful operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the Diplomatic Standard level. A Diplomatic Standard (DS) is characterized by a high degree of maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified specification or service provides significant benefit to the post industrial food community. A specification that reaches the status of standard is assigned a number in the DGST series while retaining its DIS number(s).
[edit] Experimental and Informational Discourses
An "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is published for the general information of the post industrial goods community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process. An Experimental specification may be the output of an organized research effort, a Working Group, or it may be an individual contribution. An "Informational" specification is published for the general information of the community, and does not represent the Diplomatic Goods community consensus or recommendation. The informational designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a very broad range of informational documents from many sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process.
[edit]
Current Practices
The Current Practice Sub-series of Discourses is designed to be a way to standardize practices and are the results of community deliberations. A Current Practice document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as standards' documents and thus is a vehicle by which the Diplomatic Standards community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or Diplomatic Standards' processes.
The CPD sub-series creates a smoothly structured way for any individual or entity to insert proposals into the consensus-building machinery of the Diplomatic Goods Community while gauging the community's view of that issue. Finally, the CPD series may be used to document the operation of the Community itself. For example, this document defines the Diplomatic Standards Process and is published as a CPD.
[edit]
CPD Process
Unlike maturity based documents, the mechanisms described for CPD are not well suited to the phased roll-out nature of the stages standards' maturity levels and instead generally only make sense for full and immediate initiation. The CPD process is similar to that for proposed standards.
The CPD is submitted to the Directors for review, and the existing review process applies, including announcements on the Diplomatic Standards Community and to its mailing list. However, once the Directors have approved the document, the process ends and the document is published. The resulting document is viewed as having the technical approval of the Diplomatic Standards Community (DSC)
The CPD process may be appealed according to formal procedures. Due to the fact that CPDs are meant to express community consensus but are arrived at more quickly than standards. A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been approved as a CPD is assigned a number in the CPD series while retaining its DIS number(s).
[edit] The Diplomatic Standards Process
The mechanics of the standardization process involve the decisions of the Directors in regards to the elevation of a specification onto the maturity track or the movement of a standards' specification from one maturity level to another. Although a number of reasonably objective criteria are available to guide all Directors in making a decision to move a specification onto, along, or off the maturity track, there is no algorithmic guarantee of elevation to or progression along the maturity track for any specification.
The experienced collective judgment of the Directors in regards to the technical quality of a specification proposed for elevation to or advancement in the maturity track is an essential component of the decision-making process.
[edit] Standards Actions
A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into, advancing it within, or removing it from, the maturity track -- must be approved by the Directing Body.
[edit] Initiation of Action
A specification that is intended to enter or advance in the maturity track shall first be posted as a Draft Diplomatic Standard. It shall remain as a Draft for a period of time that permits useful community review, after which a recommendation for action may be initiated.
A standards action is initiated by a recommendation by the Working Group responsible for a specification to its Director. The Director shall thus with all applicable Directors for evaluation and action can thus be initiated.
[edit]
Approval
The Body of Directors shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to it (according to section 3) satisfies the applicable criteria for the recommended action and shall in addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity of the specification is consistent with that expected for the maturity level to which the specification is recommended.
In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these determinations, particularly when the specification in consideration is deemed to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact on the community as a whole, the Directing Body may, at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the specification.
The Directing body is however not bound by the action recommended when the specification was submitted.
[edit] Publication
Once an action has been approved, notification is sent to the DIS Director with instructions to publish the specification along the specific action requested. An official summary of the actions completed and pending shall appear within the Community's Portal. This shall constitute the "publication of record" for actions.
[edit]
The Maturity Level
A specification shall remain at the Proposed Diplomatic Standard level for at least twenty (20) weeks. A specification shall remain at the Draft Diplomatic Standard level for at least twelve (12) weeks.
The minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for community review without severely impacting timeliness. These intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the corresponding DIS(s). A specification may be revised as it advances through the maturity levels. At each stage, the Directing Body shall determine the scope and significance of the revision to the specification, and, if necessary and appropriate, modify the recommended action.
Minor revisions are expected, but a significant revision may require that the specification accumulate more experience at its current maturity level before progressing. Finally, if the specification has been changed very significantly, the Directing Body may recommend that the revision be treated as a new document, re-entering the maturity track at the beginning.
Change of status shall result in republication of the specification as a DIS, except in the rare case that there have been no changes at all in the specification since the last publication.
[edit]
Revising a Standard
A new version of an established Diplomatic Standard must progress through the full standardization process as if it were a completely new specification. Once the new version has reached the Diplomatic Standard level, it will usually replace the previous version, which will be moved to an Archive status. However, in some cases both versions may remain as Diplomatic Standards to honor the requirements of an introductory base. In this situation, the relationship between the previous and the new versions must be explicitly stated in the text of the new version or in another appropriate document.
[edit]
Retiring a Standard
As concepts change and mature, it is possible for a new Standard specification to be so clearly superior that on or more existing standards specifications for the same function should be retired. In this case, or when it is felt for some other reason that an existing standards specification should be retired, the Directing Body shall approve a change of status of the old specification(s) to Archive. This action must also be represented in a form of a recommendation to the Body and it be issued with the same notification procedures used for any other standards action. A request to retire an existing standard can originate from a Working Group, a Director or some other interested party.
[edit]
Conflict Resolution and Appeals
Disputes are possible at various stages during the Standard's process. As much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be made, and genuine consensus achieved, however there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree. To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion.
This section specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with Diplomatic Standards' issues that cannot be resolved through the normal processes whereby Working Groups and other process participants ordinarily reach consensus.
[edit] Working Group Disputes
An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working Group or not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation based on his or her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group has made an incorrect conceptual choice which places the quality and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant jeopardy. The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group process; the latter is an assertion of conceptual error. These two types of disagreement are quite different, but both are handled by the same process of review.
A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s), who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working Group as a whole) in the discussion.
If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, any of the parties involved may bring it to the attention of the Line Director(s) for the area in which the Working Group is chartered. The Line Director(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute.
If the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Line Director(s) any of the parties involved may then appeal to the Directing Body as a whole. The Body shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.
[edit]
Process Failures
This document sets forward procedures required to be followed to ensure openness and fairness of the Diplomatic Standards Process, and the technical and conceptual viability of the standards created. The Directing Body is the principal agent of the Diplomatic Standard for this purpose, and it is the Body that is charged with ensuring that the required procedures have been followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards action have been met.
[edit]
Questions of Applicable Procedure
Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open Diplomatic Standards Process.
Claims on this basis may be made to the Directing Body.The Body shall acknowledge such an appeal and shall at the time of acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the Body's review of the appeal.
The Directing Bod's decision upon completion of their review shall be final with respect to all aspects of the dispute.
[edit] Appeals Procedure
All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the facts of the dispute. All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.
At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making their decision. In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must be accomplished within a reasonable period of time.
[edit]
External Standards
Many food standards groups other than Diplomatic Standards create and publish standards documents for agricultural practices and food processing. When these external specifications play an important role in the post industrial food industry, it is desirable to reach common agreements on their usage -- i.e., to establish Diplomatic Standards relating to these external standards.
There are two categories of external specifications:
(1) Open Standards
Various international standards bodies such as the IFOAM develop a variety of specifications and standards that are similar to the specifications defined here. National and international groups also publish "certification agreements" that are analogous to Applicability Procedures, capturing a body of implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical application of their standards. All of these are considered to be "open external standards" for the purposes of the Diplomatic Goods' Standards Process.
(2) Other & Closed Standards
Other proprietary specifications that have come to be widely used in the food standards industry may be treated by the DS community as if they were a "standard". Such a specification is not generally developed in an open fashion, is typically proprietary, and is controlled by the vendor, vendors, or organization that produced it.
[edit] Use of External Specifications
To avoid conflict between competing versions of a specification, the DS community will not standardize a specification that is simply an "DS version" of an existing external specification unless an explicit cooperative arrangement to do so has been made. However, there are several ways in which an external specification that is important for the operation and/or evolution of the post industrial food community that may be adopted for Diplomatic Standards' use.
[edit] Incorporation of an Open Standard
A Diplomatic Standard (DS) may incorporate an open external standard by reference. Whenever possible, the referenced specification shall be available online.
[edit] Incorporation of Other Specifications
Other proprietary specifications may be incorporated by reference to a version of the specification as long as the proprietor meets the requirements of the Intellectual Property Section. If the other proprietary specification is not widely and readily available, the Directing Body may request that it be published as an Informational Discourse.
The Directing Body should not favor a particular proprietary specification over technically equivalent to competing specification(s) by making any incorporated vendor specification "required" or "recommended".
[edit] Assumption
A DS Working Group may start from an external specification and develop it into a Diplomatic Standard. This is acceptable if (1) the specification is provided to the Working Group in compliance with the requirements of the Intellectual Property Section, and (2) change control has been conveyed to the Directing Body by the original developer of the specification for the specification or for specifications derived from the original specification.
[edit] Record Keeping and Announcements
Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of Diplomatic Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages, to the extent that the activity represents the prosecution of any part of the Diplomatic Standards Process.
As a practical matter, the formal record of all DS Process activities is maintained by the Secretariat, and is the responsibility of the Secretariat except that each Working Group is expected to maintain their own email list archive and must make a best effort to ensure that all traffic is captured and included in the archives.
[edit]
The Process
This document, which sets out the rules and procedures by which Diplomatic Standards and related documents are made is itself a product of the Diplomatic Standards Process. It replaces a previous version, and in time, is likely itself to be replaced.
While, when published, this document represents the community's view of the proper and correct process to follow, and requirements to be met, to allow for the best possible Diplomatic Standards and Current Practice Discourses, it cannot be assumed that this will always remain the case. From time to time there may be a desire to update it, by replacing it with a new version. Updating this document uses the same open procedures as are used for any other CPD.
[edit] Intellectual Property
In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the intention is to benefit the Diplomatic Standards Community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part of the DS Process, and there must be no assumption of any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.
In the course of standards work, the community receives contributions in various forms and from many persons. To best facilitate the dissemination of these contributions, it is necessary to understand any intellectual property rights relating to the contributions.
[edit] All Contributions
By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the contribution.
Where a submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.
- l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to Diplomatic Standards. This license includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the license of the original contribution. The contributor acknowledges that Diplomatic Standard have no duty to publish or otherwise use or disseminate any contribution.
- 2. The contributor grants permission to reference the name(s) and address(es) of the contributor(s) and of the organization(s) he represents (if any).
- 3. The contributor, the organization (if any) he represents and the owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution, agree that no information in the contribution is confidential and that the Diplomatic Standards and its affiliated organizations may freely disclose any information in the contribution.
- 4. The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The contributor does not represent that he personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization he represents (if any) or third parties.
- 5. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the contributor.
Upon ratification of this document, Diplomatic Standards warrants that it will not inhibit the traditional open and free access to DS documents for which license and right have been assigned according to the procedures set forth in this section, including Draft Diplomatic Standards (DDS) and Discourses (DIS). This warrant shall be perpetual and will not be revoked by DS or its successors.
[edit] Standards Documents
- (A) Where any patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights are known, or claimed, with respect to any specification on the standards, and brought to the attention of Diplomatic Standards Community, the DSC shall not advance the specification without including in the document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or claimed rights. Where implementations are required before advancement of a specification, only implementations that have, by statement of the implementers, taken adequate steps to comply with any such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification.
- (B) Diplomatic Standards disclaims any responsibility for identifying the existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights in the fulfilling of the its obligations under (A), and will take no position on the validity or scope of any such rights.
- (C) Where it is known of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval of the relevant standards specification(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the processes or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.
The Working Group proposing the use of the process with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the Executive Director in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of a specification along the maturity track, except that approval may be deferred where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the Executive Director, and made available. A summary of the results may be included in any DIS published containing the specification.
[edit] Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms
The Diplomatic Standards Community will not make any explicit determination that the assurance of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of a process has been fulfilled in practice. It will instead use the normal requirements for the advancement of standards to verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the two unrelated implementations of the specification that are required to advance from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been produced by different organizations or individuals or if the "significant implementation and successful operational experience" required to advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved the assumption is that the terms must be reasonable and to some degree, non-discriminatory. This assumption may also be challenged during the initiation of action phase.
[edit] Notices
Maturity track documents shall include the following notice:
"The Diplomatic Standards Community takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the processes or technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the DSC's procedures with respect to rights in maturity and standards related documentation can be found in CPD002."
The Diplomatic Standards Community encourages all interested parties to bring to its attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any intellectual property rights pertaining to Diplomatic Standards. For this purpose, each standards document shall include the following invitation:
"The Diplomatic Standards Community invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the Executive Director."
The following copyright notice and disclaimer shall be included in all standards-related documentation:
"Copyright (C) The Diplomatic Standards Community (date). Licence under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Diplomatic Standards Community or its successors or assigns."
[edit] Security Considerations
[edit] Acknowledgements