[Ecommerce] Re: DCOS reporting back at Rio Internet Governance Forum

[Susy Struble]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
Benoit:

I was unable to present during the reporting back session on Wednesday
as I was sick. You might have noted that you didn't see me around at all
until late afternoon. No more churrascaria for me.

I've read and re-read your intervention from the Openness session and
truly don't see how I've misleadingly quoted you.


The DCOS mission statement has always been the same, no redefinition
ever -- see the documents from last year and our web site. You can also
read the materials there for what problems we believe there are in the
ICT standardization system. One problem that I believe we didn't
adequately consider earlier was how accessibility principles
could/should be better addressed in ICT standards.


Unfortunately, although the sessions were audiocast, it seems they
weren't recorded permanently and posted, so I can't point you to these
to refresh your memory. However, Laura deNardis from Yale Law School's
Information Society Project did indeed present her thesis on the
relationship between ICT standards and issues of public policy. Her
thesis is that "technologies both embody values and, once developed,
have political consequences." Along with Eric Tam, she's written a paper
on the topic that you can find on our DCOS web site or on the Social
Science Research Network.


Regards,
Susy



Benoit Muller wrote:
>
> Susy =96
>
> I was surprised to read your statement posted to these lists during
> yesterday=92s reporting back session.
>
> My understanding is you were supposed to report back into the Openness
> session the day before, which I regret you chose not to do. You
> instead reported yesterday, misleadingly quoting an excerpt of my
> intervention in the Openness session out of context and thus exceeding
> your role as workshop rapporteur.
>
> I have asked the Secretariat to either delete your statement from the
> records 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 =93provide
> government policy makers and other stakeholders with useful tools to
> make informed decisions to preserve the current open architecture of
> the Internet and the World Wide Web=94.
>
> So do I understand correctly that you are really looking at IETF and
> W3C standards? Could you elaborate on the =94problems=94 you were =93plea=
sed
> to hear=94 about concerning these standards? What is the relationship
> between these standards=92 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
> =93political dimension of standards, how technical standards often
> actually set policy=94 . Do you have IETF and W3C standards in mind?
> Could you elaborate?
>
> With respect to the second workshop, I do not recall the
> representative from Extramadura to talk about =93how their e-inclusion
> programs relied upon open standards and why, and what policies =96 such
> as government procurement =96 were put in place to support greater
> competition and access and lower costs.=94 Quite on the contrary, I
> remember him responding to MEP Malcolm Harbour that their policy was
> limited to promoting open source software excluding competing
> technologies and products and did not focus on open standards. I also
> recall the representative from Sri Lanka indicating that their policy
> was focusing on standards broadly supported by the marketplace and
> precisely excluding to prescribe standards in areas were several
> standards are competing 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 participating by requesting to sign on to the
> narrow mission statement you have drafted based on your company=92s
> positions that are not consistent with mainstream software industry
> views on interoperability and standards, unless you have indeed
> decided yesterday to revise the Coalition=92s mission as per your
> intervention quoted above), calling on government intervention in ICT
> standardization without being specific neither about the alleged
> public interest 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
> happened
>
> 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
> products
>
> 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
> software
>
> 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
> recent
>
> years. So in terms, again, of public policy, with again I think
> intellectual
>
> policy pro tech is really what is available to enable all of these
> development
>
> models to flourish and to compete as opposed to preferences. Because
>
> preferring one over the other limits choice, limits competition, and
> ultimately
>
> for the user, including the government user, reduces the opportunity
> to get
>
> best value for money. Because also of this increasing trend to see mixed
>
> solutions, and the way the marketplace has evolved where customers,
> including
>
> 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. BS=
A
>
> 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
> compete
>
> 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,
> security,
>
> 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
> also in
>
> standards. Mandating standards is very risky because particularly in area=
s
>
> where mandating a standard would ultimately result in mandating a
> particular
>
> product. So what I would contend is the goal for government, and
> particularly
>
> 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 are 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 Foru=
m
>
> I'm Susy Struble, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Open
> Standards, or DCOS. Our mission is to provide government policy makers
> and other stakeholders 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 effect 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
> standards
>
> discussed often this year, from the opening discussion panel to
> yesterday's panel on openness. We believe these discussions will lead
> to greater understanding 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 coalition's
>
> workshop yesterday afternoon.
>
> Our first workshop on Monday focused on the intersection between open
> ICT standards, development and public policy. Our panelists spoke of
> the economic aspects of interoperability as well as existing and new
> activities in WIPO 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 than WTO TRIPS, could cause problems
> =96 this is certainly an issue for policymakers to understand. There was
> also some discussion of potential exceptions and limitations to IP
> law, such as for reverse engineering under copyright 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
> technical standards often actually set policy. If you don't have a
> seat at the table .... well, most ICT standards in the world are
> actually created by private industry consortia, just as the Business
> Software Alliance representative pointed out yesterday when he said
> =93BSA members are responsible for the development of the open
> standards, all the technology standards, that exist today.=94 That might
> not be the worst model, but are there characteristics that these
> organizations and their output should have that would give them
> 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 coalition will do. ICT standards should have accessibility
> principles built in from the beginning. The W3C provides a model that
> our coalition will explore more.
>
> We had a working meeting of the coalition on Tuesday that actually
> turned more into a repeat of our Monday general session, but we did
> spend more time there talking about capacity building for developing
> economies and the public interest in ICT standards setting. We heard
> how the IETF attempts to address this problem, and I think their model
> and others are something the 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 Spain spoke about how their e-inclusion programs relied upon open
> standards and why, and what policies =96 such as government procurement
> =96 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 and join the mailing list at www.igf-dcos.org
> <http://www.igf-dcos.org>
>
>
> ....
--
[ susy.vcf of type text/x-vcard deleted ]