(ICT) Standards Policy in Europe – Two Selected Issues Kai Jakobs Aachen University

What exactly is a standard? “A document, established by consensus and approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.” “Standards are not only technical questions. They determine the technology that will implement the Information Society, and consequently the way in which industry, users, consumer and administrations will benefit from it.”

Why be interested in standardisation? Technology has an impact on its environment. During design, technology is framed through technical, organisational, societal, cultural and economic factors. “The shaping process begins with the earliest stages of research and development.” For most IT systems standardisation represents this ‘earliest stage’.  Know what shapes a particular technology Be able to proactively manipulate its impact

The Web of SSBs Today (excerpt)

Co-ordination

Different levels of co-ordination between SSBs covering similar ground (e.g., RosettaNet and ebXML, or between ETSI and IEEE), between working groups in different SSBs working on similar projects (e.g., the IEEE a/b/g standards and ETSI’s HIPERLAN/2), between different working groups within the same SSB (e.g., the IEEE 802.3/4/5 LAN-MAC standards), between individuals inside a working group.

Different levels of co-ordination between SSBs covering similar ground (e.g., RosettaNet and ebXML, or between ETSI and IEEE), between working groups in different SSBs working on similar projects (e.g., the IEEE a/b/g standards and ETSI’s HIPERLAN/2), between different working groups within the same SSB (e.g., the IEEE 802.3/4/5 LAN-MAC standards), between individuals inside a working group.

Co-ordination SDOs / consortia ICT Standards Board (ICTSB) the European SDOs plus several major consortia, Publicly Available Specifications (PAS) a means for a quick transposition of external specifications into (international) standards, mutual membership, bi-lateral liaison agreements, more informally, through joint membership of individuals.

Why SSBs wish to co-ordinate Consortia need recognition by policy EU Directives only reference European Norms: –compliance with such norms is pre-requisite in most public procurement tenders, –compliance with formal European bodies’ ‘lightweight’ products will also be eligible soon, –massive discrimination against consortium standards. SDOs need to avoid marginalisation consortia are the major players in may important sectors (LANs, Internet, WWW, e-business, ….).

Why users would like co-ordination High membership fees, too few skilled personnel, avoid overlap of work, uncertain impact on the market,......

Why we need the SDOs Why bother if they vanish - let the market decide..... Well, yes, perhaps, but: this approach is valid for some technologies (e.g., peripheral interfaces, etc), but would you actually want to let MS, Cisco, SUN, IBM and the like alone decide about, e.g, the telephone network, the Internet, mobile networks? For such technologies, time isn’t so much of an issue, consensus and high quality are.

The situation in summary ICT (including e-business and e-government) is a hugely diverse domain: numerous SSBs are active in this area, co-ordination between NSOs, CEN and ISO, limited co-ordination between NSOs, ETSI, and ITU-T, limited co-ordination between SDOs and consortia, hardly any co-ordination between consortia.

Ongoing developments The differences between some consortia and SDO are diminishing. The dichotomy ‘SDOs vs consortia’ is becoming less relevant. Selection of the most appropriate SSB is largely done on a case-by-case basis. Companies Companies are seeking specific solutions to specific problems. The characteristics of the originating SSB are important (not their ‘status’).

How to improve co-ordination Strengthen existing co-ordination activities. –MoU on e-business standardisation, –the ICTSB. Encourage new forms of co-operation between SDOs and consortia. Extend to major consortia, e.g., –mutual exchange of documents and work programmes, –exchange of observers, –joint working groups. Identify a suitable division of labour between SDOs and consortia. between ‘infrastructure’ (SDOs) and ‘applications’ (consortia; SDOs’ ‘new deliverables’).

Open Standards

Don’t be confused For the Open Source community, ‘open’ refers to the final product and implies –freely available specifications, –royalty-free IPR, –the right to use and modify the code, –ideally interworking (reference) implementations. To the standards community, ‘open’ refers to the standards-setting process, and implies –consensus, –due process, –an appropriate IPR policy. I’m referring to the latter.

IDABC Interoperability Framework Minimal characteristics... to be considered an open Standard (critical issues): “The... standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee”. “The intellectual property – i.e. patents possibly present – of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.”

Criticism Many SDOs depend on the sale of standards  Free availability of documents will interfere with many SDOs business models. Royalty free IPR likely to deter IPR holders. Explicit limitation of IPR to patents hardly comprehensible. Lack of requirement for ‘due process’ ditto.

Why bother? Potentially significant repercussions in Europe: Standards may well be policy-relevant i.e., be integrated into / referenced by the regulatory framework Public procurement frequently may require compliance with ‘open’ standards.....

In summary Co-ordination of, and division of labour between all relevant SSBs is called for. (European) policy makers need to create a more level playing field for all SSBs. A reasonable and widely supported definition of ‘open standard’ would help create this playing field. This definition would thus also contribute to more efficient standards setting.

Potentially interesting links IDABC programme: European Interoperability Framework for Pan- European e-government Services. European Commission: Commission Staff Working Document: The challenges for European standardisation, disation/doc/staff_working_document_en.pdf disation/doc/staff_working_document_en.pdf European Commission: The role of European standardisation in the framework of European policies and legislation. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, COM(2004) disation/doc/communication_en.pdf, disation/doc/communication_en.pdf, 2004 European Commission: i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment – Extended Impact Assessment. mpact_assessment.doc mpact_assessment.doc

Thank You Very Much for Your Attention Questions, Please.....

The world of standards setting, 1970s before the ICT sector really got off the ground

Some Consequences I Competition emerged struggles between SDOs and consortia, a choice of platforms for potential standards setters, issues about an SSB’s ‘credibility’ or legitimacy (‘good’ and ‘bad’ standards), potential marginalisation of individual SSBs.

Some Consequences II SDOs ‘fought back’ shorter turn-around times, fast-track process, PAS - ‘Publicly Available Specification’, ‘new deliverables’ to ‘mimic’ consortia’s processes and deliverables. An even more complex situation. An urgent need for co-ordination.

The ICT Sector is characterised by: an extremely high pace of technical development, a recognised importance of standards, traditionally slow ‘formal’ standards setting. Mismatch standardisation - development Emergence of new standards setting bodies (SSBs); industry consortia

A Bit of Motivation Why talk about standardisation? “Innovation = The creation, development and implementation of a new product, process or service.” At least in ICT, standardisation very much equals “development and creation”. Not unlike joint research, standardisation is an important contributor to innovations.

Co-ordination Between SDOs

Co-ordination Between Consortia mutual membership, apart from that - hardly any.

Who Develops ICT Standards Today? International ‘formal’ bodies, e.g. ISO (International Organization for Standardization), ITU (International Telecommunication Union) Regional and national ‘formal’ bodies, e.g. ETSI (Europ. Telecommunications Standards Institute) BSI (British Standards Institute) Industry consortia, such as OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) OMG (Object Management Group) W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

The Policy Influence EU Directives only reference European Norms: compliance with such norms is pre-requisite in most public procurement tenders, compliance with formal European bodies’ ‘lightweight’ products will also be eligible soon. Massive discrimination against consortium standards.

Struggles between SDOs and consortia

Some Consequences There are: struggles between SDOs and consortia, a choice of platforms for potential standards setters, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ standards (issues about an SSB’s ‘credibility’ or legitimacy), potential marginalisation of individual SSBs, a need for coordination.

Choice of Platforms ‘Traditional’ view: formal bodies vs consortia formal bodies said to be ‘slow’, ‘consensus’, and ‘compromise-laden’, more ‘credible’, consortia typically associated with ‘speed’, ‘short time to market’, and ‘meets real market needs’. This is over-simplifying, and plain wrong in some cases. not particularly helpful overall.

Classifying Standards Setting Bodies A more flexible approach towards classification: no pre-defined categories, description through a set of attributes, –each organisation can identify relevant attribute types and associated appropriate attribute values, –these can be matched onto the organisation’s requirements on an SSBs, –this allows identification of an SSB that best meets specific needs in a particular case.

‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Standards The (popular) view also held by (parts of) the EC: Consortium standards are inferior to those published by the formal bodies. ‘Open Standards’ are the way forward. The industry’s view (according to two independent studies): The source of a standard does not really matter (at least not in the sense of ‘formal body vs consortium’. Regarding the impact of a standard, the divide is ‘proprietary’ vs ‘open’ (formal or consortium).

What Exactly is a ‘Standard’? According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), its a “document, established by consensus and approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.” In the context of the European Commission directives, a standard is defined as: “a technical specification approved by a recognised standards body for repeated or continuous application, compliance with which is not compulsory.”

SSB Descriptors General –e.g., overall goals, business models, governance, IPR policy, reputation, competition Membership –e.g., # of members, membership classes, key players involved?, active members, Standards setting process –e.g., overall time frame, consensus, transparency, decision mechanisms, Output –e.g., types of products, # of implementations, maintenance.

Types of Potential Standard-Setters I ‘Traditional’ classification But: more and more formerly indirect users turn towards incorporating special ICT systems into their products e.g., the automotive industry

Types of Potential Standard-Setters II Based on stakeholder’s motivation: Leaders aim to control strategy and direction of an SSB; typically large manufacturers, service providers. Adopters more interested in influencing technical characteristics than strategy; typically large users, SME vendors, system integrators. Observers main motivation is intelligence gathering; typically academics and consultants.

What a ‘Leader’ Would Look For I Governance: Does it provide for strong influence of interested players? Or is it rather more ‘egalitarian’? Finance: Are finances sound? Will the consortium have the stamina to survive the process? Does it depend heavily on individual entities/contributors? IPR policy: Is the IPR policy adequate? Will it eventually put-off users who are afraid of high licensing fees? Will it deter holders of important IPR from joining? Reputation: Is the consortium well respected in the area in question? Related to that – are its standards widely implemented?

What a ‘Leader’ Would Look For II Competition: Are there competing consortia? Are competitors likely to emerge, or are all relevant players members? Membership levels: does the highest membership level available guarantee the necessary level of influence? Who else is at this level? Are leading users represented in the ‘upper’ levels? Key players involved?: Who are the active players? Are all relevant stakeholders represented? Are leading users on board? Is the combined market power adequate? Timing: Will I be able to meet a window of opportunity?

Some Concluding Remarks The proposed classification scheme takes into account –the overall goals of a company, –its business model, –its strategies with respect to the sector in question. By identifying relevant attribute types and values a company may decide on an SSB best suited to –strategically influence the market through standardisation, –exert tactical influence on a standard, –observe. Know Thy Goals.