Talkstandards

Comment by Dr Georg Heidenreich (Siemens AG Healthcare)

posted by Talkstandards on Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 am

Statement regarding COM(2009)324

“Modernising ICT standardisation – The Way Forward”

By Siemens AG Healthcare, Dr. Georg Heidenreich, Manager Healthcare IT Standards

This White Paper COM(2009)324 allows to expand and recognize expertise that has been developed over years -not necessarily within ESOs- but also by fora and consortia.

The work done at international level shall have prioritiy in order to minimize fragmentation at national level, and to move towards a more efficient integrated system that can follow the evolution of technologies.

The underlying Commission initiatives regarding IPR and the inclusion of fora and consortia are significant positive steps forward.

As to the attributes (section 2.1) – for standards as well as for the standardisation process- those attributes should be identical to the agreed WTO (“Technical Barriers to Trade”) principles. “Consensus” may include rules for quorum and/or majority voting among key stakeholders such as industry, users, operators, etc.

The required clarification regarding the need to implement standardised interfaces to platforms, frameworks etc. should include an evaluation of the work of relevant SDOs including fora and consortia in the respective field of application.

Since researchers are stakeholders like any other participants in standardisation, they shall as well adhere to the above attributes (see section 2.1 of the White Paper) which would allow them to propose their work via open, transparent, consensus-based processes to relevant SDOs.

Today’s “IPR-in standards” systems of upfront disclosures and FRAND commitment are balanced and work well, and should be implemented by all relevant SDOs. Further improvements could be sought but in our view ex-ante declaration of terms is not a good route.

EU legislation and policies for regulation should avoid referencing fora and consortia work. However, specific fora and consortia work should play a role in non-regulatory ICT standardization provided they include an appropriate number of experts and level of expertise in specific fields, and that they comply with the attributes of section 2.1.

Standards should be produced when there is a need expressed by relevant stakeholders, rather than by discretion of the ESOs. The reason why fora and consortia have been created is that ESOs often did not provide the platform to create market-relevant standards. Fora and Consortia such as DICOM or HL7 have proven successful as several of their documents were published via ISO/CEN. However a more transparent way to recognize this work via ESOs should be established. As a result of such improved cooperation, ESOs may refer to published work of fora and consortia – rather than issuing new standards.

recent DISCUSSION

Niklas Lindblom says:

It is certainly true that industry fora and consortia have speed in developing standards that formal ESOs sometimes lack. Therefore I share your opinion that allowing standards developed by non-formal bodies is a definite step in the right direction towards creating more efficient standardization processes. I get the impression that the Commission is seeking to assimilate the expertise from fora and consortia by increasing the level of collaboration between formal SDOs and non formal bodies. But I can’t help to wonder; if they all adhere to the same attributes, why should regulatory standardization not refer to fora and consortia developed standards?
The treatment of IPRs is not an easy issue, it is however welcomed that the Commission recognizes the importance of IPR protection. The FRAND approach allows IP holders to receive due compensation for the usage of their protected technology; at the same time it prevents discriminatory pricing or other market distorting actions an exclusive IP holder could be able to impose. Ex ante disclosure of royalty fees can possibly create further openness and transparency before a standard is adopted.
I agree that adopting the attributes developed within the WTO TBT agreement shows the Commission’s aspiration to develop the international collaboration between SDOs. This also corresponds to the Commissions ambition to not let future standard development take place without European stakeholders lobbying for the protection of EU interests. Reaching consensus in developing a standard is necessary to reach the best possible outcome. However, since interests varies between stakeholders, so may the opinion on what is the best possible outcome. I therefore think it is important that rules regarding what stipulate a consensus are clear, taking into account the interests of all concerned stakeholders.
As mentioned, ensuring international collaboration in the standardization process and interoperability in resulting standards is important to minimize national fragmentation. This is a concern for all countries involved in international standard setting. Since nations themselves can be viewed as stakeholders in certain aspects, perhaps a list of “attributes” describing governmental conduct throughout the standardization process could further reduce the risk of such fragmentation?

Comment by Dr Georg Heidenreich (Siemens AG Healthcare)

recent DISCUSSION

Comment on this post

About the Author

Talkstandards.com

An active online community where developers, researchers, policymakers and other interested parties can share ideas and collaborate on the global standards system.