[Ecommerce] DCOS reporting back at Rio Internet Governance Forum

[Benoit Muller]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Susy -



I was surprised to read your statement posted to these lists during yesterd=
ay's reporting back session.



My understanding is you were supposed to report back into the Openness sess=
ion the day before, which I regret you chose not to do. You instead reporte=
d yesterday, misleadingly quoting an excerpt of my intervention in the Open=
ness session out of context and thus exceeding your role as workshop rappor=
teur.



I have asked the Secretariat to either delete your statement from the recor=
ds of the IGF or include a reference to my full statement. I am copying the=
 not perfect but good enough transcript of my intervention below.



I further note your redefinition of the DCOS mission to "provide government=
 policy makers and other stakeholders with useful tools  to make informed d=
ecisions to preserve the current open architecture of the Internet and  the=
 World Wide Web".



So do I understand correctly that you are really looking at IETF and W3C st=
andards? Could you elaborate on the "problems" you were "pleased to hear" a=
bout concerning these standards? What is the relationship between these sta=
ndards' alleged problems and WIPO activities you refer to in your statement=
 and what government decisions are you calling for?



I attended both your workshops and do not recall discussions about the "pol=
itical dimension of standards, how technical standards  often actually set =
policy" . Do you have IETF and W3C standards in mind? Could you elaborate?



With respect to the second workshop, I do not recall the representative fro=
m Extramadura to talk about "how their e-inclusion programs relied upon ope=
n standards and why, and what  policies - such as government procurement - =
were put in place to support greater competition and access and lower costs=
." Quite on the contrary, I remember him responding to MEP Malcolm Harbour =
that their policy was limited to promoting open source software excluding c=
ompeting technologies and products and did not focus on open standards. I a=
lso recall the representative from Sri Lanka indicating that their policy w=
as focusing on standards broadly supported by the marketplace and precisely=
 excluding to prescribe standards in areas were several standards are compe=
ting such as in the area of document formats.



While you bear the responsibility of being the only business representative=
 to the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (and excluding others from part=
icipating by requesting to sign on to the narrow mission statement you have=
 drafted based on your company's positions that are not consistent with mai=
nstream software industry views on interoperability and standards, unless y=
ou have indeed decided yesterday to revise the Coalition's mission as per y=
our intervention quoted above), calling on government intervention in ICT s=
tandardization without being specific neither about the alleged public inte=
rest dimension underpinning your agenda nor about what type of intervention=
 you are seeking, I call on you to in future fully adhere to the rules and =
spirit of the IGF.



Benoit





  >>BENO=CET M=DCLLER:   That's right, yes. Thank you. I would like to

address Mr.

  Chairman Lemos' points about open source software and open standards. By =
way of

  background, I represent the Business Software Alliance, which is a trade

  association representing most of the leading software companies and their

  hardware partners developing and licensing software on their proprietary,=
 open

  source and increasingly mixed models. On open source software, I think we=
 all

  witnessed that open source has really gained -- open source is not new.  =
It's

  been around since the inception of the Internet.  But what has really hap=
pened

  over the recent years is that open source has really become much more

  mainstream, and has made its way into the commercial marketplace. As I

  mentioned, increasingly BSA members work on both models and a lot of prod=
ucts

  we all use have incorporated both open source as well as proprietary

  components. So I think in terms of the policies that address these issues=
, what

  is very important to remember and to note is that both or any type of sof=
tware

  licensing development and licensing model is really based and facilitated=
 by

  intellectual property.  And it is really, then, a choice for developers,

  innovators to compete to innovate both on the technical side but also on =
the

  business model side.  And that's what really we have witnessed over the r=
ecent

  years. So in terms, again, of public policy, with again I think intellect=
ual

  policy pro tech is really what is available to enable all of these develo=
pment

  models to flourish and to compete as opposed to preferences.  Because

  preferring one over the other limits choice, limits competition, and ulti=
mately

  for the user, including the government user, reduces the opportunity to g=
et

  best value for money. Because also of this increasing trend to see mixed

  solutions, and the way the marketplace has evolved where customers, inclu=
ding

  government customers use products on the different models and from an

  increasingly wide range of suppliers, interoperability clear is becoming =
more

  and more important.  And open standards are one of the ways to achieve

  interoperability. So it is absolutely true that open standards have gaine=
d

  significant interest among policymakers as well as in the marketplace.  B=
SA

  members are responsible for the development of the open standards, all th=
e

  technology standards, that exist today, and it is very, very important to=
 BSA

  members to continue, obviously, to collaborate on standardization and com=
pete

  on implementations. What is important, again, here is interoperability is=
 the

  goal, and actually the ultimate goal is efficient IFT infrastructure with=
 the

  right level of interoperability.  But these are very complex and market

  sensitive issues where different interests, such as also reliability, sec=
urity,

  value for money have to be balanced. So it is mostly a marketplace issue.=
 Now,

  turning to Chairman Lemos' point about government roles on open standards=
, I

  think, again here governments can enable the environment, facilitate the

  industry to innovate, including in the area of intellectual property

-- sorry

  of interoperability by recognizing the value of intellectual property als=
o in

  standards.  Mandating standards is very risky because particularly in are=
as

  where mandating a standard would ultimately result in mandating a particu=
lar

  product. So what I would contend is the goal for government, and particul=
arly

  when government acts as purchaser of software, should be an efficient I.T=
., a

  part of which is the right level of interoperability and open standards a=
re one

  of the means to achieve this end.





________________________________

From: openstds-bounces@ipjustice.org [mailto:openstds-bounces@ipjustice.org=
] On Behalf Of Thiru Balasubramaniam
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:27 PM
To: Open Standards DCOS; a2k@lists.essential.org; ecommerce@lists.essential=
.org
Subject: [Openstds] DCOS reporting back at Rio Internet Governance Forum







I'm Susy Struble, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards, or =
DCOS. Our  mission is to provide government policy makers and other stakeho=
lders with useful tools  to make informed decisions to preserve the current=
 open architecture of the Internet and  the World Wide Web, which together =
provide a knowledge ecosystems that has strongly  shaped the multiplier eff=
ect of global public goods and improved economic and social  welfare.



I also represent Sun Microsystems.



Our multistakeholder coalition was pleased to hear the problems in ICT stan=
dards

discussed often this year, from the opening discussion panel to yesterday's=
 panel on  openness. We believe these discussions will lead to greater unde=
rstanding of a system  that has profound power over what we can and cannot =
do with ICTs and will ultimately  lead to better decision making about what=
 changes, if any, need to be made.



We hosted three sessions this year, and we also participated in the A2K coa=
lition's

workshop yesterday afternoon.



Our first workshop on Monday focused on the intersection between open ICT s=
tandards,  development and public policy. Our panelists spoke of the econom=
ic aspects of  interoperability as well as existing and new activities in W=
IPO that are related to the  issue of standards and intellectual property, =
such as the new Development Agenda and  new work in the Standing Committee =
on Patents. They also spoke of how the new trend  of bi-lateral free trade =
agreements, which are often broader in their IP protection  requirements th=
an WTO TRIPS, could cause problems - this is certainly an issue for  policy=
makers to understand. There was also some discussion of potential exception=
s and  limitations to IP law, such as for reverse engineering under copyrig=
ht and patent law for the purposes of ensuring interoperability in a system=
 in which the economic network  effect is so strong. The European Committee=
 on Interoperable Systems presented on the  role competition law and policy=
 can play in promoting ICT interoperability.



Panelists also discussed the political dimension of standards, how technica=
l standards  often actually set policy. If you don't have a seat at the tab=
le .... well, most ICT standards  in the world are actually created by priv=
ate industry consortia, just as the Business  Software Alliance representat=
ive pointed out yesterday when he said "BSA members are  responsible for th=
e development of the open standards, all the technology standards, that  ex=
ist today." That might not be the worst model, but are there  characteristi=
cs that these  organizations and their output should have that would give t=
hem appropriate legitimacy?



Our last panelist presented on the need for every IGF dynamic coalition to =
include

promoting accessibility in its work, and that's certainly something our coa=
lition will do.  ICT standards should have accessibility principles built i=
n from the beginning. The W3C  provides a model that our coalition will exp=
lore more.



We had a working meeting of the coalition on Tuesday that actually turned m=
ore into a  repeat of our Monday general session, but we did spend more tim=
e there talking about  capacity building for developing economies and the p=
ublic interest in ICT standards  setting. We heard how the IETF attempts to=
 address this problem, and I think their model  and others are something th=
e coalition will explore over the next year.



And lastly, on Tuesday afternoon we held a best practices workshop in which=
 the

government of Sri Lanka and a representative of the Extremadura region of S=
pain spoke  about how their e-inclusion programs relied upon open standards=
 and why, and what  policies - such as government procurement - were put in=
 place to support greater competition and access and lower costs.



For anyone who wants to get involved, we invite you to vist our web site an=
d join the mailing list at www.igf-dcos.org


....