Welcome to the world of standards setting. Here at ACORD, we make it a point not to respond when members agree to disagree, particularly when it gets into theological debates about technology. But ACORD welcomes any and all input from players in the game and we believe that a response is proper in this instance. The details of data structure, or where one decides to draw the line on modeling, are all legitimate topics for industry deliberation. And were glad that the deli counter metaphor was characterized as an exaggerated microcosm, because it was. When there is ambiguity and no consensus, one needs to bear in mind that standards setting is all about collaboration and compromise. As long as compromise does not mean that nobody wins. We hope that the Food For Thought editorial does not cause some readers to inadvertently conclude that Microsoft does not support ACORD standards, or that they are at odds with the entire process or the members specifically. This is clearly not the case. Had you attended the ACORD Annual Conference in Orlando this past May and listened to the Microsoft presentation, you would know of what we speak. Microsoft provides tools that support ACORD standards and they are among its most ardent advocates. ACORD and Microsoft are closer in thinking than the article might have let on… but no one would ever conclude that Kevin Kelly, managing director of financial services for Microsoft, or Josh Lee, Microsofts financial services technical strategist, lacked passion about anything, or that subtlety was their virtue. We spent time at a recent industry event to discuss the context and substance of their editorial and came away with ideas to work together in the standards process to provide greater educational interchange on matters of mutual concern. So, this is a good opportunity for us to explain what ACORD members are doing. We can also provide an update if you were not with us in Orlando or you do not participate in the standards-setting process. Lets begin by making a few comments about ACORD. First, standards bodies are not vendors that hire employees to develop products for sale to customers. So when we talk about ACORD, we refer to the members that make up the process. The ACORD Global Standards Committee has oversight responsibility for three steering committees property and casualty, life and annuity, and reinsurance. Each steering committee manages a sub-committee and several work groups. Today, we have 375 volunteers representing 150 member organizations actively engaged in setting priorities and standards. The standards-setting process allows members to move forward in parallel and keep pace with the needs of a diverse membership. The end result is an unprecedented number of people driving more standards today than ever before. But this does not mean that the process cannot be improved. We agree that speed is critical. But while speed tends to be illusive in most standards setting circles, ACORD committee chairs are eager to improve the process and solicit additional member resources to get the work done. That was a major agenda item at their last meeting. Second, the ACORD process is open and we follow similar rules as all other standards-setting organizations like the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), for example. We abide by operating procedures and our approach is consistent with other industries as well as cross-industry standards groups. We are active in OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) and partner with many standards bodies globally through UN/CEFACT (United Nations Center for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business). But rules do not mean that we cannot be flexible in finding creative and clever ways to deliver industry standards. We have fast tracked a number of initiatives this past year, but such efforts need to become the rule rather than the exception. Third, we abide by majority rule. But having said that, we do not disregard minority opinion, because it may include leading edge concepts that pave the way for the rest of us. Nor do we want to suggest that the ACORD staff has no role other than facilitation and execution. Our members rotate personnel and, as a result, plans change with enough frequency that committees can easily get bogged down re-educating participants and rehashing the past. The dotcom revolution itself has created a constant churn in ACORD participation. The staff helps to provide stability and industry memory. While members drive the process, some decisions have unforeseen obstacles or challenges not considered. So we want the ACORD staff to provide an informed context in which members can make good decisions. And there is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom in order to avoid the group think that can so easily beset committees. So we not only ask the staff to listen, we also encourage them to counsel, advise, and recommend. We also hope that you do not conclude that Microsoft was advocating a Data Dictionary only approach since this is also not the case, as Kevin emphasized to us at our meeting. They are suggesting that the dictionary is a first and most important step followed by lightweight grammar and aggregates. So we also do agree that structure is important. We thought that the delicatessen metaphor (they used in the Food For Thought editorial) for ordering a sandwich demonstrated the need for both words (definitions) and grammar (structure) quite well. Unless one places the words in the proper sequence, a lunch order could be: Id like a bag of turkey, large mayo, tea sandwich with iced tomato chips, lettuce, and a potato, please. And even if all the words were understood (defined), what was missing (or assumed) was that the deli worker knew the process for creating it. After all, the idea is to deliver what the customer is expecting to receive. Finally, the data model is a source of much discussion and debate. Exactly how the initiative develops over time will depend on many factors. Its clear to all that the context of an item often changes the meaning drastically. Yet not all members actively participate in the modeling initiative, nor is it mandated. Most developers focus on the content of the message rather than the high-level structure itself. Even though the model was used to create the messages, they would only need to reference the dictionary and the message structure for implementation. Modeling has been a great tool within the standards-setting process itself. Since ACORDs goal is to create a truly global standard, our standards together with partnering standards bodies from around the world, will be submitted to UN/CEFACT. But in order to do that, the standards have to be modeled. Having said that, we certainly do not want the modeling effort to get in the way of providing the essential building blocks necessary for members to create solutions today. In summary, ACORD does maintain a robust data dictionary and a full set of transactions for most major lines of business. However, the work is not done. More transactions are required in order to provide developers with a complete set to support applications. This is particularly true for the back office business transactions compared to the point of sale business messages. We recognize that structure is important, beginning with the light aggregates (define the sandwich), an aggregate extension framework, light transactions, heavy transactions, transaction extension framework, and finally, a modeling or business process. When we met with Kevin and Josh a few weeks ago, we exchanged some good ideas on how to enroll more ACORD members in the process and engage them in these conversations. Kevin said (and rather than paraphrase we will quote) that, Microsoft is proud of our multi-year support of the ACORD mission and the organization. It is a long-standing relationship that we take very seriously. We are dedicating many resources, including our partner relationships, to making it easier for customers to implement the ACORD standards and reduce the burden of development and maintenance related to their continued support. Challenges abound for ACORD as significant changes are taking place on the global standards playing field related to the Internet and XML, and we wanted to stimulate a discussion among a wider audience than the current standards-setting process allows. Our relationship is strengthened and our resolve to step-up our support of their efforts on behalf of the insurance industry is deepened. Well, Kevin has never been short on words and although it seems a bit strange to give him the last word (118 to be exact) in our reply to his and Joshs editorial, it seemed like the right thing to do. We want our members to voice concerns and raise issues. In fact, it was a theme in the opening general session at the ACORD conference in Orlando this past May. We even asked our staff and ACORD directors to wear large buttons that read, Lets Talk. There is an old saying, Be careful what you ask for. Yes, there will always be debate on these and many other issues. Your participation is not only important for ACORD to remain responsive to your needs, it has now become vital. We need more, not less, discussion in order to realize our collective industry goals. We hope to see you all at future ACORD meetings. Kevin Kelly and Josh Lee will certainly be there. And they said that they might even buy you a deli sandwich. Now how could you resist?