recent DISCUSSION

• arebentisch says:

  That is an unusual move because it is not upon ETSI to lobby the Commission or to intervene in regulatory debates, and the Commission may consider to sanction ETSI for an undue intervention. Usually standard organisations are not keen to be drawn in licensing debates, while the institutional preference is in favour of open standards, a simple matter of competence and pragmaticsm leads to the widespread embracement of rand conditions as second best. I can’t see why the Commission would take a standard organisation serious that is prone to capture. Indeed, that might hint at larger problems which matter for the standard development organisations namely financing of standardisation.

  What needs to get considered is that there are different levels
  1. Terminology, definition of the concept?
  2. Which pragmatic role for this concept?
  3. Which role for this concept in the public sector?

  Professionals generally do not like it when their terms are compromised to serve particular commercial or political objectives. The criticism of the term as correctly defined by IDABC reflects a mix of 1) and 2) considerations.

  Critics of the professional term have to explain why their alternative makes the term redundant. As far as I am aware of the clarification “standards and specifications” resolves the problems which may arise from the wording in the standard directive which is a non-issue in some EU member states e.g. Germany where we find “Standards und Normen”.

  If the real dissent was RF or (F)RAND, then that debate should get conducted on this level. In particular “legal interoperability” is a field where special attention is required.

  Furthermore the EIF2 does not relate to standard development but public administrations. Licensing is a matter of procurement offerings and it is natural to expect the procurement agencies of the public administrations to aim to negotiate better conditions for themselves, which is mirrored by an interests of vendors, including some vendors who aim to obstruct that procurement approach. Some governments are bound by the WTO GPA principles that prohibit patent references in technical specifications used in their procurement. That is another issue to consider.
• R Bekkers says:

  Many comments have been were raised when the EIF/IDABC people started to use the term ‘open standards’ in a rather different way than what it used to mean, both in the field and in academia. Although these folks use various definitions of an open standard, it is generally believed that a due diligence procedure in which all stakeholders can participate in the standardization process is one of the essential requirements. Usually, reasonable access to essential IPR is acceptable (e.g. (F)RAND policies), and Royalty Free or waiving rights is not a necessary condition. There are quite a few more dimensions, which are discussed in a paper by Tim Simcoe if I remember well.

  The initiative by some EU member states to start using the term ‘Open Specifications’ instead of ‘Open Standards’ reduces confusion and should be applauded.

  Rudi Bekkers