Re: [open-regulatory-compliance] Language for communication with the reg

[Daniel Thompson-Yvetot <denjell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have a small correction:

\Those manufacturers headquartered outside of Europe MUST have an Authorized Representative headquartered in a European Member State, and the language must be understood by the authority where the Authorized Representative is headquartered. The fallback for "largest number of users" is in place IMHO for the cases where the manufacturer is still non-compliant.

On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 2:42 PM Dirk-Willem van Gulik via open-regulatory-compliance <open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So on the question

        https://github.com/orcwg/cra-hub/issues/152

        Cybersecurity policy in many languages? #152

We have the text:

                Further to a reasoned request from a market surveillance authority, open-source software stewards shall provide that authority, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority, with the documentation referred to in paragraph 1, in paper or electronic form."

Which boils down to whatever country you are HQ-tered in; and And as per:

                https://github.com/orcwg/cra-hub/issues/167#issuecomment-2730451710

the hint that for those outside Europe - it would be the country with the largest number of user.

Would this be a case were the Expert group or the broader community can ask the commission for guidance/hint that we suggest that for open source stewards (as the latter is hard to surmise), there is always the option to submit to ENISA in any EU language -or- in (just) English ?

With kind regards,

Dw
_______________________________________________
open-regulatory-compliance mailing list
open-regulatory-compliance@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org