In July, Talkstandards.com hosted an open forum which covered current issues related to Transparency in EU Standardization. A number of expert contributors posted a series of articles which covered a broad range of issues related to the general theme of the event. These articles are summarized below. Please follow the links to access the articles in full.
Transparency’s Role in CEN-CENELEC Operations:
Elena Santiago, Director General of CENELEC, highlighted the high degree of transparency within the CEN and CENELEC systems, two official European SSOs. She outlined the implemented framework which guarantees this transparency as well as a number of proposed initiatives to further increase its level.
Modernising ICT Standardisation in the EU – The Way Forward:
Describing the EU standardization White Paper as “a weak attempt to focus on important issues”, Ken Krechmer highlighted a number of the EU’s seven key standardization policy areas in which he suggests government involvement may be undesirable. He concluded that the white paper falls short of addressing the needs of a “post-information society”, and instead based upon the outdated goals of a 20th century “industrial society”.
Reform of Standardization Policy: Building a Risk-Based Regulatory System:
Valentin Nikonov and Lorenza Jachia, of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (W.P.6), presented an overview of the groups “holistic approach” to the management of risks within regulatory systems. The approach, which is broadly based upon a series of codified steps, attempts to delicately balance between the two extremes of regulatory systems: excessive regulations and insufficient regulations. The authors describe the WP 6 as able to “provide insight and directions to the reform of standardization policy”.
Trade-Offs related to the Transparency in the European Standardisation System:
Knut Blind broke down a number of issues related to transparency into those associated with the standardization process and those associated with its final output. However, moves towards greater transparency within the final output – ie making the published standard available free of charge – are in many regards challenging the traditional business models of many standards bodies.
The Dangers of Compulsory FRAND Conditions:
Helen Disney warned that “we should be wary of over-restricting IP-related practices”, with respect to the complexities involved in the standardization process and specifically achieving full transparency within it. Highlighting the need for increased dialogue between SSOs and IP-related organisations, compulsory obligations such as FRAND licensing curb the choice and flexibility which are “cornerstones of competition” and risk hurting innovation.
The Silence of the Chips:
Ajit Jaokar warned, that too much transparency may in fact harm end-users through the phenomenon of Obfuscation – concealment of intended meaning in communication. The “Silence of the Chips” is an EU proposal to guarantee an individual the right to disconnect from their networked environment at their discretion – relevant against the backdrop of “Internet of Things” initiatives and complete with a catchy logo. Ajit questioned whether “under the guise of transparency, the only people who will gain any value from it are the mug makers and t-shirt makers”.
The European Framework for Transparent Standardisation:
Simon Hicks pointed out that transparency is important in the creation of standards that “have widespread use or have regulatory links” and that a regulatory framework can “make abuse of the system difficult”, but that the system must also largely be based on trust. “The European Framework for Transparent Standardisation” also addressed the need of standards being discussed in connection to IPR. However, Hicks warned that this “is likely to draw [standards organizations] too much into the commercial arena and take away from the focus on producing standards”.
Transparency in Standardization under EU policies:
Marcus Glader discussed how applying the same requirements applied under competition law on the EU standardization policy, could safeguard that cooperation on standards do not restrict competition. Regulation can affect the market ubiquity of a standard, but also curb development. Glader concludes that “different governance and organization models may be appropriate and efficient”.
Transparency in EU Standardisation – Response from OASIS:
Laurent Liscia, James Bryce Clark and Carol Cosgrove-Sacks argued that EU directives should “promote interorganizational cooperation, and be careful not to style themselves as competition to marketplace efforts”. “Transparency in EU Standardisation – Response from OASIS” also pointed out how transparency in terms of visibility into projects, availability of legal rights and clarity of administration can help improve open standards.
