1. Summing-up discussion
Standards, open standards and Interoperability
ETSI, Sophia Antipolis, 26 May 2005
Summing-up
discussion
Francisco da Silva, Chairman of the ETSI Board

2. “interoperability” - 1 ... means something different to everybody
... means “interworking” to some people
... means “compatibility” to some people
... means “interoperabilty” to some people (..err what !)
to solve it we need to understand it, we need an agreed definition?

3. “interoperability” - 2
However, everybody agrees this is a business necessity, and there is:
increasing demand for Technical Interoperability
need to include it in the standards making process
benefits for everyone but completely unorganized
still being treated as “ad hoc” issue
needs a clear public policy
End-users are bewildered (and not just them !)
Industry and Governments, in particular through and SDOs, have to take the lead namely to guarantee overall coherence

4. “open” - 1 ... means something different to everybody!
... means “free” to some people!
open (availability) =
from “you can buy a copy”
to “its free on the web”
open (IPRs) =
from “FRAND conditions apply”
to “all IPRs are Royalty-Free”
open (process) =
opportunity for all stake-holders to participate”

5. “open” - 2 some examples: IDABC:
available “Free-of-Charge” & IPRs “Royalty-Free”
but applies only for software in the context of eGovernment !
W3C:
available “Free-of-Charge” & IPRs “Royalty-Free”,
web culture and FRAND-IPR polices don’t work well together,
have a FRAND exception process but never used it (..and maybe never will ?)
“free” is not the problem – its the other conditions !
classic SDO:
available “Free-of-Charge” or “small-fee”,
IPRs on FRAND conditions.

6. “open source”
... is about implementation/business models not about specification / standardization
... so its IPR perspective is one of a business model, i.e. a different perspective from the one of the standardization activity

7. “open standards (process)”
everybody agrees that we need open standards as a condition for successful interoperability
but this is not sufficient, more is needed..
there is much agreement on the overall concepts but differences arise when we start considering the IPR issues

8. so what needs to be done need to refine concepts such as:
“Interworking”
“Interoperability”
“open standard”
“open source”
“free” – re. SDO processes
“free” – re. implicit implications (IPRs)
Is openness of standards: IPR policy dependent, or is it a matter of business models ?
software, business & standards people need to start using the same language/concepts
IPR policy: can one size fit all (no way?)
What needs to be done to solve the Operators problem when the IPR license fees are too high – review FRAND levels in SDO IPR policies ?

9. Please help us to help you !
what next
need to increase consensus building across all stake-holders
need to agree on priorities
need to accept that there maybe more than one conclusion to choose from
ETSI is willing to be a driver in the debate and to provide a place to talk ....and the infrastructure necessary
ETSI will organise another hearing on [21 October 2005]
Please help us to help you !