The Chinese authorities are developing the technology first and foremost as a national grid integrating the needs of the current national energy policies, so as to reduce the massive energy losses and under-optimal energy uses hampering the Chinese economy [2]. Whilst it does not revolve around end-user needs, the grid is foreseen to be sufficiently smart to allow integration of “smart cities” concepts in the near future.

A stunning total of €450 billion is to be invested in the construction of the Chinese national grid until 2020 when the grid will reach expected completion, incorporating thermal energy, nuclear, renewable energy, electrical vehicles batteries and more. The proportion of clean energy generated is expected to rise from 6.8% in 2005 to 11.1% in 2015. Such planning at policy level necessarily entails considerable standardization efforts; and indeed, planned standardization for Smart Grid in China currently includes 92 standard series comprising more than 700 standards (many of which are already under development).

This standardization plan follows three stages. The first stage, completed in 2010, was dedicated to achieving a preliminary standards framework through pilot projects. The second stage kick-started early 2011 and now focuses on creating national standards whenever needed to complement the existing international standardization landscape.  The third and final stage (2016 – 2020) unambiguously aims at establishing the Chinese grid standards as the internationally recognized references. We have already seen some of the deliverables of Chinese standardization in this field as proposals for international standardization at IEC.

China’s Smart Grid policy, the 12th Five-Year Plan, standards, and the future grid development are all closely related to the activities of a single state-owned company, SGCC– the State Grid Corporation of China . From 2011-2015, the SGCC will implement its “One Ultra, Four Large” strategy as basis for the Smart Grid in China. Developing an Ultra-High Voltage (UHV) transmission network (“one ultra”) brings basic guarantee for the sustained and intensive development of large coal-fired power, hydropower, nuclear power and large renewable energy (“four large”). Meanwhile, the only other grid company in China, the China Southern Power Grid Company (eng.csg.cn), has started to build China’s first Ultra High Voltage network – installed UHV power lines already exceed a 1000 kilometers.

Many different standard development bodies are involved in the development of Smart Grid standards in China. Whilst the leading role is undoubtedly with the SGCC and its affiliated organizations – namely the China Electric Power Research Institute CEPRI – numerous other players are involved. In order to coordinate their efforts, the National Energy Administration of China NEA announced in October 2010 the creation of the “National Smart Grid Standardization Overall Promotion Working Group”, hosted by CEPRI. This initiative includes three sub-working groups on standardization, grid equipment, and international cooperation. Other major Chinese players involved in the smart grids standardization efforts include the China Electronic Standardization Institute CESI, the Instrumentation Technology and Economy Institute of China ITEI, and the China Communication Standards Association CCSA.

Meanwhile, standardization in Smart Grids is also gaining momentum in the EU: A “Focus Group” for Smart Grid Standards was also set up, bringing together CEN-CENELEC and their national members, ETSI, European stakeholders associations as well as observers from the European Commission, EFTA, ISO and IEC. Based on the result of this focus group – to be published these days – a mandate on Smart Grid standards to CEN, CENELEC, ETSI has been promulgated just about a month ago. This follows a standardization mandate on Smart Metering to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in March 2009 (ftp://ftp.cencenelec.eu/CENELEC/EuropeanMandates/m441en.pdf).

One may nevertheless feel that the EU is lagging behind China’s overwhelming speed and investment in making standards and implementing them nationally before promoting them to become successfully global. Ready access to cost-competitive equipment will allow China’s utilities to build their infrastructure/ faster than anywhere else. Furthermore, integrated ownership of both utilities and transmission systems enables China to drive unparalleled consistency of standards adopted nationwide very fast.[3]

Investment plans for the UHV-based National Grid leave little space for deviation from the pre-defined targets. Strain and pressure on Chinese resources to make this standardization work happen could certainly have an impact on the quality of the work, as well as on the willingness of Chinese experts to compromise. Yet whilst China insists time and again that international and global coordination and harmonization of standards has top priority in their standardization work, we witness here the physical limitations of such cooperation: there is very limited time left for major international cooperation efforts.

In areas where international standards exist, or where major standardization work is ongoing in Europe and with other trading partners, it is very likely that China will adopt such standards. However, in areas where the standardization work is in the early stages, we will have to accept that China moves ahead and develops its own standards, which have a good chance to become international thanks to China’s globally leading level of investment.

China is moving very fast in the area of Smart Grids, at a speed which is not comparable to the developments in Europe. In order not to broaden the gap, Europe would benefit in sending more standard experts to China and increasing the exchange of information, expertise and cooperation. Furthermore, while China is showing tremendous initiative on the development of their national grid and related standards, Europe seems to be focusing its standardization efforts more on the “smart” side of the grid and on solutions geared towards the end-user, in which China is still mostly absent: smart home, smart metering, demand side management, and more. These different areas of focus allow us to expect some space for global complementarities between EU and Chinese grids standards.

Cloud standards

‎• ‎How standards could get cloud out of the 1970s

A road map to developing standards about to be released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology promises to improve the interoperability, portability and security of cloud infrastructures, and, in the words of Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, could help get the technology out of the Internet equivalent of the 1970s.

The NIST Cloud Computing Standards Roadmap Working Group is making use of existing, publicly available work along with the work of other NIST Working Groups to develop the standards document, Annie Sokol, co-chair of the working group, said during a presentation at the NIST Cloud Computing Forum and Workshop III on April 8. The document is set to be released this month.

The Cloud Computing Standards Roadmap document will be incorporated into the NIST Cloud Computing Roadmap, which is due by the end of fiscal 2011. The NIST Cloud Computing Roadmap will define and prioritize U.S. government requirements for interoperability, portability and security in order to support secure and effective adoption of cloud computing.

‎• Kundra: Cloud computing data sovereignty a matter for …

Cloud computing adoption at federal agencies is no longer a question of “if,” said Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra.

Critics of the “cloud first” initiative should embrace change and address issues that still need work, charged Kundra while speaking April 7 at a cloud computing forum at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md.

“Some people have overly dramatized the challenges,” he said, while acknowledging that data sovereignty is a legitimate challenge.

“It’s not going to be a question of technology. [Data sovereignty] is going to be a question of international law, and treaties that we will need to engage in the coming years,” said Kundra.

“We’ve got a very diverse interpretation and a very diverse perspective when it comes to privacy or international security, if you look at our neighbors–Canada or Mexico–versus what’s happening in the European Union,” he said.

Privacy standards

‎• New European standards for online behavioural advertising

The European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) has published a new code of conduct to help the industry cope with new European regulations around adverts based on tracking browsing habits.

The guidelines provide for an industry-wide self-regulatory standard for online behavioural advertising (OBA) to ensure consumer privacy protection across Europe.

• ‎Kerry, McCain’s proposed online privacy legislation divides industry

Newly proposed online privacy legislation to protect the collection, use and dissemination of personally identifiable information (PII) has divided the industry — some say it’s sorely needed, while others counter that it goes too far and will hurt business.

‎• Privacy ‘bill of rights’ exempts government agencies

Two U.S. senators introduced sweeping privacy legislation today that they promise will “establish a framework to protect the personal information of all Americans.”

There is, however, one feature of the bill (PDF) sponsored by senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that has gone relatively unnoticed: it doesn’t apply to data mining, surveillance, or any other forms of activities that governments use to collect and collate Americans’ personal information.

‎• US administration to unveil Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace today

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke will be joined by Chair of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling and White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard A. Schmidt to release the administration’s National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) – a White House initiative to improve online security, increase privacy and foster economic growth and innovation online. Hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the event will include a panel discussion with industry leaders and privacy advocates, as well as demonstrations of innovative smart technologies being developed to improve online authentication.

NSTIC is a key building block in the national effort to secure cyberspace. According to industry surveys, as many as 8 million Americans are victims of online fraud and identity theft each year and lose an average of $631 out-of-pocket per incident. Through a private sector-led effort facilitated by the government, NSTIC aims to make online transactions more trustworthy and enhance consumers’ privacy, thereby giving businesses and consumers more confidence to conduct business online.

Web standards

‎• Adobe wakes to mobile world, Web Standards

Adobe Systems is something of an industry punching bag in some circles for offering software wedded to a personal computer era we’re supposedly outgrowing.

As part of the debut of Creative Suite 5.5, the company today announced a collection of new software that includes three iPad applications; Flash tools better at creating content that reaches devices beyond PCs; and developer tools that bring some of Adobe’s strength in design tools to the Web standards world of HTML, JavaScript, and CSS.

It’s not going to be enough to placate critics who dislike the toll the Flash Player takes on their laptops’ battery life (never mind that Web standards doing the same thing bring a similar penalty). But it should be enough to convince rational people that Adobe doesn’t just see the world through Flash-colored glasses.

‎• Berners-Lee calls for higher purpose of Web

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.–Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the underpinnings of the World Wide Web, isn’t just concerned about getting browsers on more mobile devices. Architects of the Web need to consider how it will affect all humanity as it evolves.

In his talk, Berners-Lee reprised his role in writing the protocols now used on the Web and how a few chance encounters led to the World Wide Web Consortium being first located at MIT. Looking ahead, he said that the W3C, which manages the development of technical Web standards, needs to adapt to the “ridiculous” number of mobile devices, including mobile phones and tablets.

‎• Personal data is the future, but does anybody care?

As I’ve been building my own personal data collection startup, I’ve thought a great deal about how I could communicate the value of knowing and owning your own data to non-geeks. The answer came to me after making a list of all of the personal data collection applications I have signed up for. I looked at those I use religiously versus those I’ve abandoned. Those I use religiously include: RunKeeper, TripIt, Foursquare, Gowalla, Fitbit, Mint, Hashable, OKCupid, Last.fm and Foodspotting. Those that I love the idea of, but have since left behind, include: Hunch, Blippy, 23andMe, GoodReads, Plancast and Dopplr.

I know that others’ lists will be different, but the point is that this process allowed me to step back and really think about what sort of real-time value I was getting out of gathering my own data. I was able to boil the results down to three categories that, I believe, could be used to incentivize personal data collection for just about anybody. These categories are:

‎• Utility
‎• Serendipity
‎• Self-expression

In order to incentivize the continued use of any personal data collection application, you either have to really excel in one of these areas or cover all three. Let me explain…

‎• Why Did Google Just Give Its Chrome Leader Big Bucks And A …

The reason Chrome is important because Google’s platform is the Web, which is defined by “standards.”

Official standards are usually determined by some group or groups of people sitting around a table and debating and writing papers and so on. That’s what HTML5 started as.

But standards don’t become meaningful until people start using them — these are so-called “de facto” standards.

‎• Apple Adds ‘Do Not Track’ Option to Safari

Apple has jumped on the “do not track” bandwagon by adding the privacy tool to a test version of its Safari browser, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The “do not track” option is included in Lion, the next version of Apple’s Mac OS X. It’s currently only available to developers, and scheduled to be released later this year. The Journal said mentions of “do not track” started popping up in Web forums and on Twitter; Apple has not made any formal announcements.

A “do not track” option basically provides Web users with the option to not have their online activity tracked. This type of data is highly valuable to ad networks, which can use it to serve up more targeted advertisements. In many cases, relevant ads can be helpful to the Web surfer, but there is a concern that the average person has no idea what type of information is actually being collected. “Do not track” will provide them more control, according to supporters.

‎• OGC and SIG 3D Advance Standards for 3D Digital Cities

WAYLAND, MA–(Marketwire – April 8, 2011) - The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC®) and Special Interest Group (SIG) 3D recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to cooperate in standards development and promotion of standards for the exchange and visualization of 3D geospatial content using Web-based technologies.

SIG 3D members defined the first version of CityGML and in 2005 submitted CityGML as a candidate standard into the OGC standards process. CityGML is a comprehensive open data model framework and XML-based encoding standard for the storage and exchange of virtual 3D urban models and is now an OGC standard. It is an application schema of the OGC Geography Markup Language 3 (GML3) Encoding Standard, an international standard for spatial data exchange and encoding approved by the OGC and ISO. CityGML has been adopted as part of the European Union’s common spatial data infrastructure, INSPIRE.

‎• IPTC Releases rNews Standard Draft for Embedding Metadata in …

Publishers, large and small, struggle to make sure that search engines and social media sites find their stories and refer to them appropriately. They want to provide highly targeted adverts while dealing with users who are opposed to the privacy implication of sharing the personal data necessary to accomplish that. How can they build web pages with news stories where the components of the story are machine-readable, as well as human readable?

The IPTC has taken a step to solving this problem with the release of the first draft of the rNews standard. Details of rNews are available at http://dev.iptc.org/rNews.

‎• A Victory for the Community? Oracle Spin Out OpenOffice, but Questions Remain

Oracle made the announcement today that OpenOffice will become a community project and no longer a commercial endeavor.

It’s not a surprising move. But it does feel like a victory for the open source community and a sign that Oracle may be easing up a bit on its hard-line stance toward the open source community.

‎• Internet Explorer, WebGL and a Return to the Bad Old Days

WebGL, a standard that enables hardware accelerated 3D animation in HTML5 (you can see some examples here). Unlike WebSockets and other unfinished specs, WebGL is now a complete specification with support from every other major browser. Microsoft, however, has no plans to implement WebGL.

Here’s the statement the company gave us this week:

Browser vendors are implementing WebGL as a way to get partial hardware acceleration after developers rewrite their code. With Internet Explorer 9, developers receive GPU-powered hardware acceleration without rewriting a single line of code which we feel is a better outcome. We look at the real world patterns of the things developers are building today and want to build tomorrow, and balance this against the risk with including things that will likely change in the future. Sometimes there seems to be a race going on to try to make headlines “by claiming to be first” to implement specifications. We don’t think that is healthy. Interoperability is not about being first. Instead, we wanted to provide a stable platform for the web. We focused on building test suites with the W3C for specs that were considered “done”, but where there were real interoperability gaps. These are not that the “sexy” problems that get talked about.

It’s a shame. IE9 and 10 look to be great browsers. But the harder I look at what Microsoft is doing, the harder it is to believe that its browser strategy is developer friendly.

Combine this with Chrome’s Native Client and the ongoing war over a video codec standard and I think we’ll see a return to the bad old days soon.

‎• Open source is mission critical for NASA

Last week’s inaugural NASA Open Source Summit in Mountain View, Calif. was aimed at identifying the agency’s issues surrounding open source tools and using the power of the web to collect policy recommendations.

The Summit organizers convened thinkers and leaders in open source technology from around the country, including representatives from RedHat, GitHub, Google, the Department of Defense, Mozilla, IBM and from within NASA itself. If you want to review the play by play, I liveblogged the NASA Open Source Summit at Govfresh.

‎• FaceBook open sources building an energy efficient data center

Today, Facebook is lifting the lid on its new custom-built data centre in Prineville, Oregon.

Not only are they announcing the bringing online of their new data centre, but they are open sourcing its design, specifications and even telling people who their suppliers were, so anyone (with enough capital) can approach the same suppliers and replicate the data centre.

Facebook are calling this the OpenCompute project and they have released a fact sheet [PDF] with details on their new data center and server design.

Smart Grid Standards

‎• Commission ideas on smart grids draw mixed reactions

The European Commission presented, on 12 April, its ideas on how to push smart grids forward. The communication focuses on developing common EU-level technical standards so as to provide interoperability of different systems. Officials hope that a first set of smart grid standards could be in place by the end of 2012. The Commission also talks of ensuring the highest level of data protection for consumers and grid operators. Data protection safeguards must be defined before systems are developed, says the communication. Additionally, the Commission requests that members states produce action plans with targets for smart grid implementation. Other points on the executive’s programme include guaranteeing transparency and competitiveness of the retail market. There should be minimum requirements on information provision for customers in a revised Energy Services Directive, due this summer. The Commission further boasts of promoting technological innovation. Over the last decade, the EU has spent about €300 million out of over €5.5 billion invested in some 300 smart grid projects. Still in 2011, the Commission will propose new large-scale smart grid demonstration initiatives on research and development projects for modern electricity networks. The Commission will also launch, in the “coming months,” an industrial initiative on smart cities and communities.

‎• DoE seeks standards for e-vehicles

With its grand vision of modernizing public transport in the country, the Philippine government Department of Energy (DoE) is pushing for collaboration with other concerned agencies in setting standards for vehicles, including those which would be using alternative fuels.

Despite some failing experiments in other countries and many more which cannot move into commercial scale, the energy department clings on to vision that electric vehicles and the conversion of jeepneys to natural gas vehicles (NGVs) would become its trump card in solving the country’s pollution problem and to chip away from the vagaries of volatile oil prices.

“That’s why the DoST (Department of Science and Technology), DoTC (Department of Transportation and Communications) component is very critical to us. There will be new standards, new safety standards,” Energy Secretary Rene D. Almendras said.

‎• Utilities Need to get Local Grid Ready for Electric Vehicles

According to a recent report from Pike Research, many utilities could be unprepared to deal with the impact of EVs on the electrical grid, due to a lack of standards for sharing information between utilities and external systems.

‎• Report: Smart Appliance Market Will Expand To $26.1 Billion By 2019

Although the smart appliance market is off to a slow start, it will experience greater growth beginning in 2013, and by 2019, it is expected to represent $26.1 billion, according to a new report from Pike Research.

‎• 150 Million HAN-enabled Smart Meters by 2020

The smart meter market increased 250% over the past two years and is set to triple over the next decade, according to ON World. Relentless energy demand and intensifying challenges associated with building new power plants make customer participation a top priority for advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) projects.

A few of ON World’s research findings include the following:

‎• 13 million electric AMI meters were shipped last year in North America.
‎• By 2014, Europe will surpass North America and Asia will be the fastest growing AMI market.
‎• Twenty four percent (24%) of the surveyed utilities indicate that they are likely to use a public network for AMI within the next five years.
‎• Most in-progress Smart Grid standards use an IP stack such as ZigBee Smart Energy 2.0, IEEE802.15.4g, and IEEE1901.2.
‎• By 2020,150 million electric AMI meters are planned to have a HAN gateway.

‎• ETSI workshop addresses the challenge of Smart Grid standardisation

Paris (Teletechwire): ETSI’s first Smart Grid workshop, held at Sophia Antipolis on the 5th and 6th of April 2011, attracted over 250 participants from Europe, China, Japan, Korea and North America. Representatives of the power and ICT industries came together to address the challenges they face in standardising Smart Grid technology.

Mobile standards

‎• Industry body calls for comments on standards for location-enabled SMS

The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) seeks public input on the candidate Open GeoSMS Standard which would help define location-aware and location-based SMS applications more clearly.

According to the OGC, the reason for proposing Open GeoSMS is because Location Based Service (LBS) devices or applications of different brands or from different vendors are often unable to share LBS information with each other which poses a potential barrier to the development of the LBS industry. Open GeoSMS also opens up a host of new opportunities around location-enabled SMS.

‎• MMA Publishes Mobile Couponing Best Practices And Guidelines

NEW YORK, LONDON, SINGAPORE & SAO PAULO, April 11, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — The MMA (Mobile Marketing Association) (www.mmaglobal.com) today published “Guidelines and Best Practices in Mobile Price Promotions” for North America. Created by the MMA’s Mobile Couponing Task Force, the document is designed to provide marketers, merchants, wireless carriers and other mobile marketing ecosystem members with an industry-standard standard for using mobile coupons and rebates to increase sales and promote consumer loyalty.

‎• PBS’ Landmark Next-Generation Emergency Alert System Pilot Project …

LAS VEGAS–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–Beginning later this year, PBS will initiate testing on a next-generation emergency alert system, which is designed to deliver multimedia alerts using video, audio, text, and graphics to cellphones, tablets, laptops and netbooks, as well as in-car navigation systems. Building on the flexibility of the ATSC Mobile Digital TV broadcast standard, the PBS pilot project will test capabilities designed to lead to a comprehensive new Mobile Emergency Alert System (MEAS), part of the first major overhaul of the nation’s aging Emergency Alert System (EAS) since the Cold War. PBS Chief Technology Officer John McCoskey will announce the pilot project today at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Show in Las Vegas.

‎• DARPA To Develop Android, iPhone Encryption

The Department of Defense (DoD) research arm is seeking to develop encryption technology to secure data in iPhones and Google Android-based mobile devices.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) aims to create full disk and system encryption for the smartphone devices that can be used not only in the DoD but also across agencies, according to a request for information (RFI) posted on the FedBizOpps.gov site.

“The primary purpose of this RFI is to discover new technologies and methods to support full disk and system encryption of the [commercial mobile devices] (specifically Apple and Android platforms) to include a pre-boot environment to load the operating system,” according to the RFI.

‎• Low-cost wireless sensor networks open new horizons for the …

The ESNA project enables high effective networking based on cheap wireless sensors in a wide range of business applications – from more comfortable and energy-efficient environmental controls to precision monitoring of agricultural resources.

The EUREKA ITEA software Cluster ESNA project has developed a flexible framework for business-oriented wireless-sensor network applications using a standard architecture to facilitate communications between all types of smart device – from domestic appliances and environmental controls in the home to the latest process control equipment in factories.

‎• EAS Logo Program: Good Start, But Not Far Enough

Yesterday, Microsoft announced the Exchange ActiveSync Logo Program, which is designed to give IT pros confidence that they’re allowing well-supported mobile devices to connect to corporate networks. Exchange ActiveSync (EAS) has become the standard protocol for mobile device syncing and policy control. The problem has been that even device makers that license the protocol from Microsoft can implement it at different levels on their smartphones and other mobile devices. The new logo program will certify that a given device meets a minimum level of EAS support.

‎• Security Innovation’s NTRUEncrypt Adopted as X9 Standard for Data

X9, the official body for technical standardization for the financial services industry, develops, establishes, maintains, and promotes standards to facilitate the delivery of financial services and products. Because NTRU is smaller and faster than other public key crypto, it provides numerous performance and security benefits to the financial community. Financial institutions can now offer high-security data communications without incurring hefty costs or sacrificing performance, which has not been possible with other public key crypto such as RSA. Additionally, because of its small footprint, NTRU is ideal for handheld and mobile devices that historically haven’t offered strong encryption security due to limited computing resources.

Recognizing the need for stronger crypto that will hold up under increasingly powerful attacks, such as those that will be enabled by quantum computing, and understanding how NTRU is unique in its ability to do this, the X9 standards body created the X9.98 standard and certified NTRU. It is the only crypto to be X9.98 certified, which specifies cryptographic functions for establishing symmetric keys, using a lattice-based polynomial public key encryption algorithm. “Security Innovation has always been committed to improving IT security and protecting customer data,” said Adams. “The availability of crypto that meets this new standard, in NTRU, is a significant advancement for the financial community.”

‎• 13.56MHz Favored in China’s Contactless Payment Standards Battle

Zhang Qi, director of the China Information Industry Trade Association (CIITA), announced at the China Mobile Payment Industry Summit in Beijing today that 13.56MHz was tentatively selected as China’s national contactless payment standard in a meeting in November 2010 between government regulators, Chinese banking network China UnionPay and China’s three major mobile operators. The meeting was organized by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), and the Standardization Administration of the Peoples Republic of China (SAC). 2.4GHz will likely be limited to use in closed application environments such as corporate buildings, and will not be used in the banking and financial sectors.

‎• Khronos pushes for sensor, device input API standard

The Khronos Group pushes for an open API standard for advanced input devices to enable innovations by sensor and device manufacturers, while simplifying portable application evelopment.

• INTERVIEW: Malcolm Harbour
Chairman of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (LINK)

• INTERVIEW: Elena Santiago
CEN-CENELEC Director General (LINK)

• Knut Blind: Interoperability within the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative – the Innovation Union

www.talkstandards.com/interoperability-within-the-europe-2020-flagship-initiative-the-innovation-union
In the European Commission’s recently published communication on the Innovation Union, the need for “faster setting of interoperable standards” is highlighted. However, as Knut Blind commented, it remains rather unclear how this objective will be reached. While the EC acknowledges the need for more efficient coordination of research and standardization efforts, two other dimensions are missing which are also crucial for assuring interoperability. These are, demand-side considerations (including public sector procurement) and, most importantly, greater integration of international consortia.

• Helen Disney: Creating a Modern Framework
www.talkstandards.com/creating-a-modern-framework
While Interoperability is an essential component in ensuring that standards are utilized across the board, recently, we are witnessing a worrying trend in which policy-makers are afforded a greater degree of discretion concerning the desirable direction and forms in which standardization interoperability should take place. As opposed to this coercion and exclusion, Helen Disney emphasized the need to discuss and consider the most effective ways of securing and maintaining this objective. The real challenge is to create a modern framework that incentivizes and harnesses market forces towards greater interoperability, while also providing the necessary safeguards to deal with market failures when they occur.

• Ken Krechmer: Suggestions for the future of EU standardization
www.talkstandards.com/suggestions-for-the-future-of-eu-standardization
Ken Krechmer outlined five key points which need to be addressed within the European standardization framework. These include addressing the ambiguity within the EU literature, greater emphasis towards Government-led R&D, greater inclusion of stakeholders, avoiding confrontation with consortia, and a move away from “fixed standards”. Regarding the ambiguity of terms, Krechmer commented: “Open standards” is like “democratic government,” it is easy to say but very hard to achieve. The first step is a clear definition.

• James Bryce Clark: Interoperability within the Standards Marketplace
www.talkstandards.com/interoperability-within-the-standards-marketplace
While classical economic theory would say that the standards market is delivering exactly the amount of interoperability that its forces require at equilibrium, OASIS’ James Bryce Clack commented that even at its best, the standards “market” is an example of the imperfect markets spawned by the knowledge economy. Further exasperating this, the word “interoperability” is often thrown around, but it’s rarely quantified. Interoperability requires clear designation, clear criteria and clear proof.

• Ait Jaokar: Standards, Fora, Innovation and Geography
www.talkstandards.com/standards-fora-innovation-and-geography
There is an ongoing debate in the European commission regarding revision of the European Standardization System and the European Commission is currently working on a “Standardisation Package”. Ajit Jaokar outlined the vision as two over-arching goals; ensuring, through standards, European competitiveness at a global scale and Greater Integration on a European scale. Jaokar noted that European integration is a worthy goal, but asks whether we are mixing two goals: That of European integration and European competitiveness?

The EC acknowledges that a faster setting of interoperable standards needs a closer integration of standardisation in the Framework Programme. However, opening up the Framework Programme for the issue of standardisation is a rather challenging task, which requires a comprehensive approach starting from the designing of research programmes, over their performance until their evaluation (see the Integrated Approach developed by the joint strategic CEN-CENELEC Working Group STAIR to address Standardization, Innovation and Research www.cen.eu/cen/Services/Innovation/STAIR/Pages/default.aspx).

Even if the interface between research and standardisation becomes more effective and efficient by implementing this approach, two other dimensions are missing which are also crucial for assuring interoperability: the demand side and the international dimension including the issue of consortia. Regarding the demand side the public sector can help to promote interoperability via its public procurement strategies, which should take the role of standards more explicitly into account. This leads us to the biggest challenge: how to deal with international standardisation consortia especially active in the ICT sector both in the research Framework Programme and the European public procurement policies? Here, a comprehensive, consistent and sustainable solution is needed in the upcoming EU reform proposals.

Join the Forum discussion here: www.talkstandards.com/questions-for-event-reforming-eu-standardization/

The key points in the discussion are:

• Standardisation is related to Geography: The full potential of the single market cannot be released without the support of a modern standardisation process.

• Standardisation is related to European policy: Standardisation plays a key role in supporting the increasing needs of European policy and legislation for standards capable of ensuring product safety, accessibility, innovation, interoperability and environmental protection.

• Enhancing the national delegation principle: Enable the weaker NSBs to assume a more active role in the
standardisation process. The principle of national delegation is a cornerstone of the European Standardisation System.

• Improving access to the standardisation process: The European organisations representing societal interests (ex environmental interests) must obtain a stronger role within the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs).

• Facilitating access to standards to SMEs and micro companies.

• Standardisation in the areas of services to enable the harmonisation in the services sector, and the reduction of trade barriers and the protection of the consumer.

• Standardisation in support of innovation.

• Standardisation in a globalised world.

• Relationship to fora: ESOs and fora/consortia must find ways of cooperating in planning their activities by transferring standards to the most appropriate level, international or European, in order to ensure coherence and avoid fragmentation or duplication;

On reading this vision, there appear to be two over-arching goals:
- At a Global scale, ensuring European competitiveness through standards, and
- At a European scale, ensuring European integration through standards.

Could these two goals be mutually contradictory?

Here are some reasons why:

1) Rate of change: International standards operate at a relatively faster scale. If European companies are to be competitive now, they have to follow international standards rather than awaiting a harmonization of standards within the EU first (which could take longer).

2) Fora are domain specific and not geography driven: Globally, fora have evolved to address industries that span geography. They are better suited to work across geographies globally. For instance, telecoms standards are global and operate on a different industry cycle(for instance network upgrades). They do not rely on geography.

3) Uneven national involvement within Europe: There is uneven involvement of standardization at national level. For example, Germany is much more mature in many domains and trying to harmonise internally may actually slow down the German companies (which participate actively in international fora)

European integration is a worthy goal but are we mixing two goals? That of European integration and European competitiveness?

Would these initiatives actually slow down companies and countries who are actively participating effectively and bring them to the lowest common denominator?

Join the Forum discussion here: www.talkstandards.com/questions-for-event-reforming-eu-standardization/

Interoperability is one essential component in ensuring that standards are utilised across the board. Yet, while interoperability is a desired goal (and today a very popular buzzword), there is a need to discuss and consider much more seriously what are the most effective ways of securing and maintaining this objective.

Indeed, this is a serious question that also challenges policy-makers in the EU, both at the supra-national level and at the country level.

Unfortunately, in recent years we have witnessed a worrying trend in which policy-making bodies are afforded a greater degree of discretion concerning the desirable direction and forms in which standardisation interoperability should take place. One can identify a preference towards coercion and exclusion. The former takes place when regional and national authorities force one commercial entity to disclose its trade secrets to its competitors (who are also commercial entities) for the sake of ensuring interoperability. The latter refers to situations in which regional and national authorities a priori decide to discriminate against proprietary-based software and standards by asking governments to only purchase software which is based on non-proprietary models (see, for example, the forthcoming recommendations by the European Interoperability Framework).

This tendency is problematic. While there may be cases in which coercion and even discrimination may be required for the sake of standardisation and interoperability, these are the exceptions that should prove the rule, not the other way around.

The fact is that standardisation and interoperability are deeply rooted in market forces. It is the incentives and rewards that the market provides that drives innovators to make the risky, time-consuming and costly investments needed to bring new technologies and new standards to the market.

The major challenge is, therefore, how to create a modern framework that incentivises and harnesses market forces towards greater interoperability, while also providing the necessary safeguards to deal with market failures when they occur.

Join the Forum discussion here: www.talkstandards.com/questions-for-event-reforming-eu-standardization/

Join the Forum discussion here: www.talkstandards.com/questions-for-event-reforming-eu-standardization

What are the main motives behind the recommendation in the IMCO report on the “Future of European Standardisation”, that any reform of the European Standardization System should build upon the current system?

The European standardisation system (ESS) has been a central element in the delivery of the single market, in particular through the use of standards in key legislative areas under the ‘New Approach’, integrated into the ‘New Legislative Framework’. The current legal framework has contributed to the success of European standardisation, enabling the development of European standards which are needed by all economic actors in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, facilitate world trade and market access and boost sustainable growth and competitiveness.
It should be also emphasised that the European standardisation system plays a key role in responding to the increasing need, in European policy and legislation, for standards capable of ensuring product safety, accessibility, innovation, interoperability and environmental protection.

The national delegation principle is a cornerstone of the ESS. It has, however, its limits and needs corrections where certain interests can systematically not be heard. The ESS is often criticised for an imbalanced representation of business and public interest in the standards-setting process, both on the European technical bodies and the national mirror committees, which is owed to the low participation of public authorities and societal stakeholders. There is therefore a need for additional efforts to reinforce stakeholder engagement, in particular for European standards meant to support EU legislation and policies.

The Commission, the Member States and the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) should also take all necessary measures to enable the weaker National Standards Bodies (NSBs) to assume a more active role in the standardisation process, as there are currently significant differences among them in terms of resources, technical expertise and stakeholder engagement which create a significant imbalance in their participation in the European standardisation system.

We do not overlook the shortcomings of the current system but we believe that it is overall a successful system. Any reform should therefore build on the strengths of this system which constitute a solid basis for improvement. This is also the approach taken in the Monti report on a new strategy for the single market which emphasises that it is necessary to review the European standards process, maintaining the benefits of the current system and striking the right balance between the European and national dimensions.

What unique values does the European model bring to international standards setting?

The European standardisation system recognises the primacy of international standards. European standards are, however, necessary where international standards are not available or where they do not adequately serve European needs, in particular those needs determined by European policies and legislation. Europe should strengthen its position within the international standardisation environment in order to promote the development of standards with genuine global relevance, facilitate international trade and increase European competitiveness.

There are at least two unique values in the European system that could be used at global level: a) Europe could promote the methodology of the ‘New Approach’, or equivalent standards-receptive regulatory models, in its regulatory trade-related cooperation with EU trading partners, b) promote at global level the existing formal obligation in the ESS to withdraw contradictory national standards following the adoption of a common standard. We are aware that these two principles are specific to the European regulatory environment, but they could be used as a source of inspiration for future reforms at international level.

What role can informal, international consortia realistically play in a modernized European standardization system and how would the ESOs coordinate/cooperate with these informal bodies?

The IMCO Report on the future of European standardisation recognises that fora and consortia contribute considerably to the standardisation system by providing specifications with global relevance, which are often more receptive to innovative technologies. Most notably in the ICT sector, a number of fora and consortia have evolved into global organisations producing widely implemented specifications on the basis of open, transparent and consensus-based development processes. We believe that the ESOs and fora/consortia must find ways of cooperating in planning their activities by transferring standards to the most appropriate level, international or European, in order to ensure coherence and avoid fragmentation or duplication. The ESOs should develop and implement an improved mechanism for the adoption of fora/consortia specifications as European standards, whereby consensus on the part of all stakeholders must be guaranteed through the established procedures for consulting all parties concerned in accordance with the national delegation principle. This should not of course restrict the possibility of submitting fora/consortia specifications directly to international standards organisations in order to seek more global status.

Does the restriction of EU policy to standards developed by the ESOs run the risk of limiting the ability to foster innovation in fast evolving industries, e.g. ICT?

We acknowledge the important role played by user-driven fora and consortia to achieve innovation. In the IMCO report we call on the Commission to enhance coordination between the ICT fora and consortia and the formal standard-developing bodies in order to foster innovation and minimise the risk of duplication and conflict between standards in the ICT sector. As European Parliament, we look forward to working together with fora/consortia and the ESOs in order to find a system that would be acceptable to both parties, in the interests of an innovative and coherent European standardisation system.

Given informal standards bodies often follow their own unique set of rules, is there a transitory problems related to the integration of informal fora and consortia into the formal European standardization process and how should these issues be dealt with?

Fora and consortia participate already in an effective manner in the formal European standardisation process. They have the possibility to submit their specifications to the ESOs in order to seek a more formal status, while the ESOs should put all efforts in transforming specifications developed by fora/consortia into European standards under a consensual and open process. We are aware of the ongoing discussions between the ESOs and fora/consortia with a view to developing an improved mechanism for the adoption of fora/consortia specifications as European standards. We support those discussions and we are aware of all the complexities related to ownership, maintenance, copyright and visibility of the originating organisation.

What can European standardization do in the context of services?

Although standards have contributed to a considerable improvement in the quality and safety of goods, their availability in the area of services is far from commensurate with the economic importance and potential of this sector. The Commission’s intention to include service standards in the legal framework of European standardisation will not only ensure the notification of all national service standards that could potentially constitute technical barriers to trade in the internal market, but also provide a proper legal basis on which the Commission can request the ESOs to develop standards in well-defined and carefully assessed areas in the services sector. The development of European service standards, as provided for in Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, should benefit further harmonisation in the services sector, increase the transparency, quality and competitiveness of European services and promote competition, innovation, the reduction of trade barriers and consumer protection. Service providers should be encouraged to develop standards within the ESOs in order, to avoid, insofar as possible, fragmentation among different national standards, while ensuring that service standards are related to the needs of the market and consumers and the public interest.

Join the Forum discussion here: www.talkstandards.com/questions-for-event-reforming-eu-standardization

Standardization once (early 20th Century) was a process for achieving greater efficiency. When interfaces are programmable and software loads are trivial (the early 21st Century) standardization becomes a process for minimizing risk. Risk may be minimized by multi-mode operation. Two different solution to an interface – why argue? Allow both. Or even more. IPR claimed on a successful interface delivered in high volume? Add a mode that avoids the IPR. Multi-mode operation of interfaces reduces real risks while insignificantly reducing efficiency.

Seven policy goals are noted as desired (shown in italics) At least three of these goals may be undesirable

• Drive innovation and competitiveness by adapting ICT standardisation policy to market and policy developments;

Government direction has a long history of driving innovation away. Competitiveness is a cost issue. If more competitiveness is desired reduce costs by following the standardization output rather than leading it. Since standardization is part of an evolutionary process, the EU desire for some level of command and control is counterproductive.

• Provide industry including SMEs, with high-quality ICT standards in a timely manner to ensure competitiveness in the global market while responding to societal expectations;

How will government do this? By paying experts from industry, who would be paid by commercial organizations if the standardization task they are employed on was deemed commercially desirable. In the world of R&D, standardization is basically a development issue not a research issue. The EU would (IMHO) better serve its taxpayers by funding R (where industry activity is often lagging) rather than D, where industry activity is a reliable pointer to new markets. This point is actually suggested in the paper.

• Enhance the position of European ICT standardisation at the global level;

What is the value of regional standardization in an interconnected world? When the world was less connected it was important for the EU nations to gather their standardization efforts together. Now regional standardization is the problem, not the solution. One of the effects of regional standardization is to have the Chinese create their own standards rather than use existing “global” standards (with considerable EU input) in which the Chinese are disadvantaged.

There are standardization areas where government action is important, such as:
• Supporting the broad need for technical standards (which the EU does well),
• Requiring that standards which impact upon health, safety, security and pornography have appropriate functionality, and
• Getting out of the way the rest of the time (which the US does well).

Beyond these areas of obvious government interest there are other areas that would benefit from positive governmental action:

Addressing the rising cost of patents, and pools of patents, that apply to compatible interfaces. FRAND and RAND are not sufficient as they support reciprocal IPR advantage – where one organization accepts another organization’s IP in a standard so long as the reciprocal arrangement also occurs. The net effect of this is to increase the cost of IPR in standards with little or no advantage to the users who must pay for such mutual back scratching.

Supporting a broad understanding of openness and assisting all standardization organizations to develop means to measure and report their level of openness. (There is work in progress on this in the EU)

Transparency (of the standardization process, of patent rights and contractual terms applied to standards, and applied to the openness of standards), which includes: access to work-in-progress documentation as well as low cost access to completed standards. The IETF proved this is practical and desirable now it needs to be required. Allowing the IPR costs in a public standard to be hidden is a trap for users. Without the users’ knowledge of these costs there is no cap on how much the IPR costs may be. Three to five percent was considered a reasonable cap in similarity standards. What is a reasonable cap on the IP costs in compatibility standards?

This white paper does not offer helpful direction on these issues.

The goals identified in this EU standardization policy white paper are based on the industrial society that peaked in the early 20th Century. They do not even address the needs (compatibility) of the information age (which peaked before 2000). And they are far from the standardization needs of the post-information society which is emerging.
See “The Entrepreneur and Standards” for more details on the historical settings of standardization.

Back to the Forum

The smart metering for electricity grids is another good example of infrastructure supported by ICT in which standardisation plays a key role in attaining the envisaged energy gains. The Commission has called upon Member States to agree by 2010 on minimum functional specifications for smart metering that will enable electricity network operators, suppliers and consumers to effectively manage their energy needs and to use ICT solutions for automated energy management. To this effect, the Commission has issued a standardisation mandate to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI for the development of an open architecture for utility meters involving communication protocols enabling interoperability. The achievement of such standardisation will be a major step in the advance towards Smart Grids, which is expected to be one of the foremost contributors to ICT-enabled energy abatement.

Finally, beyond ICT technical standards themselves for interoperability of ICT products and services, ICT presents a unique potential to facilitate the standardisation of the measurement, reporting and verification of energy consumption – not only for the ICT sector itself, but also for other industries. ICT can play a key role in elaborating systemic and standard monitoring frameworks to help achieve the EU 2020 targets. The ICT industry will take the lead in this area by establishing an ICT for Energy Efficiency Forum, with the aim of delivering a common framework by 2011 for measuring its own energy consumption and exceeding the EU 2020 targets by 2015.

Photo: Xavier Häpe

The World Standards Day 2009 conference ‘European Standardisation for the next decade’ organised by the European Commission was also used to publish the issue paper of the EXPRESS group. Several issues were up for debate by expert panels.

Besides the presentations , the panel discussion encouraged discussions around the following issues. First, the role of the European Standardisation System, especially the three European Standardisation Organisations was discussed. Here, especially the relation to and the influence on the international standardisation bodies has been addressed.  In addition, the relationship between the formal standardisation bodies and consortia and fora has been a disputable issue, which has been touched in the following panel discussion.

In the second panel, a first topic being discussed was the adequate representation of consumer interest in national and European standardisation processes, which is obviously lacking – with a few exceptions – in most countries. The second topic of a better and more efficient integration between research and standardisation was in general supported, but the options to make progress are depending on the institutions being responsible for research funding, which need to be convinced with strong arguments. Here, the positioning of standardisation in the upcoming European Innovation Plan is an important strategic step. The issue of the handling IPR in standards remained open in the sense of no consensus on specific recommendations.

Finally, the future of the European Standardisation System has been discussed in the third panel. On the one hand, the closer collaboration between the three European Standardisation Organisations has been addressed especially taking converging technologies into account. On the other hand, the role of the national and European Standardisation Bodies in the international standardisation system has been discussed.

Finally, the role of consortia especially in their interplay with the European Standardisation Organisations remained unsolved. In summary, the differentiated landscape of standardisation organisations calls both for an effective and efficient framework organising their competition and for mechanisms for cooperation taking the needs of users and implementers of standards, but also of policy makers and governments into account.