June 10, 2002
Results of Ballot M1/02-0094
Approval of Project Proposal, Document M1/02-0077
|
Organization |
YES |
NO |
ABSTAIN |
No Response |
Comments |
|
AAMVA |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
ANSER |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Apple Computer |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Biometric Foundation |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Bioscrypt |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Business Solutions |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Ciritec |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Compaq |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Datacard Group |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Fall Hill Associates |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Farance Inc. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
ID Technology Partners |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Infineon |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Iridian |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
LaserCard |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Mitretek |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Motorola |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
NIST |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Niteo Partners-NEC Solutions |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Open Strategies |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
OSS Noklava |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Saflink |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Purdue University |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Q.E.D. |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagem Morpho |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Security Industry Association |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Sony |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Instruments |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Transaction Security |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Unisys |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
United Parcel Service |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
US DOD / DISA |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
US DOD/ BMO |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
US DOD / NSA |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
US DOJ / NIJ & FBI |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
US Department of State |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
US DOT / Transportation Security Administration |
X |
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Visionics |
|
X |
|
|
#2 |
|
TOTALS |
29 |
1 |
0 |
10 |
|
Comments Received:
#1 U.S. DOT/Transportation Security Administration
Achieving a standard template method will permit interoperability across this category of fingerprint vendors, maintaining a very manageable template size. This would be excellent for commercial competition.
#2 Visionics
We do not approve of
the Project Proposal as presented, because we feel that development of a
standard finger minutiae format will limit progress in improving matching
technology. We WOULD approve of a project proposal to develop a standard
for storing fingerprint images in a more economical representation, but not of
a standard minutiae-based format.
Please note that
this objection is analogous to that we initially conveyed regarding the Face
Recognition Format for Data Interchange (ed. originally as document
M1/02-0041). We posted a document to the M1 register (ed. document
M1/02-0046) and subsequently, some of the language in Section 3.2 (Existing
Practice and the Need for a Standard) was modified accordingly, so that it
became clear that the proposed work was standardization of a face image and
landmarks for use as a higher level exchange format, as opposed to
standardization on a common "template" or set of data structures (ed.
third revision posted as document M1/02-0078). Were similar modification
made to this Project Proposal, we would approve.