The Meaning of Open Standards A newer version of this paper was published in The International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, January - June 2006.This paper was presented at the Standards and Standardization mini-track of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 2005. A previous version of this paper, "The Principles of Open Standards," was submitted to the World Standards Day paper competition for 1998, and won second place. It was published in Standards Engineering, Vol. 50, No. 6, November/December 1998, p. 1-6. The Meaning of Open Standards Ken Krechmer, FellowInternational Center for Standards Research,University of Coloradokrechmer@csrstds.com Abstract This paper develops the argument that many InformationTechnology standardization processes are in transition from being controlled bystandards creators to being controlled by standards implementers. The users ofstandardized implementations also have rights that they wish addressed. Tenbasic rights of standards creators, implementers and users are identified andquantified. Each of these ten rights represents an aspect of Open Standards. Only when all ten rights are supported will standards be open to all. 1. Introduction The personal computer revolution and the following internetwave have resulted in a huge influx of new stakeholders. With a materialinterest in the technical standards that proscribe their communications, thesenew stakeholders are making new demands on the standardization processes, oftenwith the rallying cry, ?Open Standards.? As is usually the case, a rallyingcry means different things to different people. This paper explores the fullmeaning of Open Standards. Only when everyone agrees on what Open Standardsare, will it be possible to achieve them. Open standards, open source, open architecture: all soundappealing, but what do they mean? Standards represent common agreements thatenable communications, directly in the case of Information Technology (IT)standards and indirectly in the case of all other standards. Open standards,like open government, suggests greater rights to some constituencies. Explaining who the constituencies are and what rights they desire is thepurpose of this paper. Open source is used to describe an open process ofsoftware development. Often open source development makes use of openstandards for operating systems or software development tools, but the purposeof open source is to support continuous software improvement [1] while thepurpose of open standards is to support common agreements that enablecommunications available to all. Open architecture refers to a system whoseinternal and/or external interfaces are defined by open standards. The termStandards Setting Organization (SSO) refers to any and all organizations thatset, or attempt to set, what the market perceives as standards. The term?formal SSO? refers to any SSO recognized directly or indirectly by agovernment entity. Consortia refers to SSOs but not formal SSOs.It is common to think of standardization as the process ofstandards creation, but this view excludes those who implement the standard(implementers) and those who use the implementations of the standard (users). As example, Microsoft often refers to their implementation of Word as an openstandard, meaning that they make Word widely available [2]. And it is commonfor a user organization to say, ?We have standardized on Microsoft Word,? meaning that they have agreed to use Word in their organization. It seemsclear that the term open standards, at least to some, includes the openimplementation or open use of standards as well as the open creation ofstandards. As formal SSOs developed in the late 19th century, theyfocused, often with government approval, on supporting the creation ofstandards. This was quite reasonable as the standards stakeholders then werethe creators of the standards [3]. In the late 20th century technology useexploded and the number of standards stakeholders increased dramatically. Itwas no longer practical for all stakeholders to be fairly represented duringthe standards creation process. Through the middle of the 20th century, large integratedorganizations (companies that bring together research and development,production and distribution of their products or services - e.g., Siemens, IBM,AT&T, Digital Equipment Corp.) had engineers who functioned, often on afull time basis, as the integrated organization?s standards creators. Thesestandards engineers usually did not have product responsibility but supported thespecific formal SSOs necessary for the broad aims of the integratedorganization [4]. In the late 1980s, a new movement emerged where largerintegrated organizations began supporting many different SSOs via specificproduct development groups that were largely autonomous from the largerorganization [5]. This standardization proliferation movement marks the riseof the implementers? activity (independent product development group) instandardization.Now most integrated organizations have few standards creationengineers assigned to specific SSOs and often support overlapping SSO efforts. This occurs because individual product development groups (implementers) withinthe integrated organization expect standardization activities to support theirproducts rather than specific SSOs. Individual product development groups haveno history or allegiance to a specific SSO and choose to support any SSO thatbest fits their specific product development and marketing needs. Often such afit is made by sponsoring a new SSO to address the standardization requirementsof a specific developer?s product implementation [6]. This paper proposes thatproduct implementers have different goals than the standards creators they arereplacing. What a product implementer considers an open standard may be quitedifferent from what a standards creator considers an open standard. And his orher definition may also be different from what a user might consider an openstandard. Only by identifying each constituency?s view can a completedescription of Open Standards emerge. 2. The Formal SSO View of Open Standardization Many SSOs? websites refer to the desirability of openness ofstandardization. There also appears to be wide interest among formal SSOs inopen standards. Currently the formal SSOs follow rules to ensure what theyconsider an open standards creation process by requiring open meetings,consensus and due process.The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)states, ?For over a century, the IEEE-SA has offered an established standardsdevelopment program that features balance, openness, due process, andconsensus?[7]. The European Telecommunications Standardization Institute(ETSI) web site explains: ?The European model for telecom standardizationallows for the creation of open standards?[8].The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) NationalStandards Strategy for the United States (2002) states, ?The process to createthese voluntary standards is guided by the Institute?s cardinal principles of consensus,due process and openness ....?[9].However, the formal SSOs have few guidelines to ensure thatprocedures relating to the implementation or use of a standard are open. Eventhe idea that such procedures are needed is quite new. Many formal SSOs arecomfortable addressing the standardization needs directly associated with thecreation of standards but are still learning the needs of standardsimplementers and users. 3. Previous Definitions of Open Standards J. West [10] defines ??open? for a standard as meaningrights to the standard made available to economic actors other than thesponsor.? This definition offers a succinct economic view of open standards. B. Perens, the author of the Open Source definition [11],offers a software development perspective of Open Standards. He presents sixprinciples and related practices. The principles proposed are: availability,maximize end-user choice, no royalty, no discrimination, extension or subsetand predatory practices. 4. The Ten Rights that Enable Open Standards This paper attempts to understand what open standards meansto all the stakeholders by identifying and understanding all the differenttypes of rights that may be desired by creators, implementers and users ofstandards. The term Open Standards may be seen from the following threeperspectives: The formalSSOs, as organizations representing the standards creators, consider a standard to be open if the creation ofthe standard follows the tenets of open meeting, consensus and due process. An implementer of an existing standard would call a standard openwhen it serves the markets they wish, it is without cost to them, does notpreclude further innovation (by them), does not obsolete their priorimplementations, and does not favor a competitor. The user of an implementation of the standard would call astandard open when multiple implementations of the standard from differentsources are available, when the implementation functions in all locationsneeded, when the implementation is supported over the user?s expected servicelife and when new implementations desired by the user are backward compatibleto previously purchased implementations. These are the very differentviews from the creators, implementers and users of standards on what is an OpenStandard. Their combined, reasonable, but not simple expectations translateinto ten rights that enable Open Standards: 1. Open Meeting - all may participate in the standards development process.2. Consensus - all interests are discussed and agreement found, nodomination. 3. Due Process - balloting and an appeals process may be used to findresolution.4. Open IPR - IPR related to the standard is available to implementers.5. One World - same standard for the same capability, world-wide.6. Open Change - all changes are presented and agreed in a forum supportingthe five rights above.7. Open Documents - committee drafts and completed standards documents areeasily available for implementation and use.8. Open Interface - supports migration and allows proprietary advantage butstandardized interfaces are not hidden or controlled.9. Open Use - objective conformance mechanisms for implementation testingand user evaluation. 10. On-goingSupport - standards are supported until user interest ceases rather than whenimplementer interest declines (use).Comparing these ten rights with the economic rightsidentified by J. West [10] suggests that economic rights require further rightsto exist. Economic rights cannot be maintained without supporting the politicalrights basic to a fair political process: balance, consensus and due process. In order for the economic rights associated with compatibility to be available,some technical process (Open Changes) and technical functionality (OpenInterfaces) are also required. In order for specific economic rightsassociated with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to be available, specificSSO procedures must be used. Comparing these ten rights to the six principles proposed byB. Perens [11]:Availability is addressedby Open Documents.Maximum end-user choiceis addressed by Open Use.No royalty isaddressed under Open IPR.No discrimination isaddressed by Open Meeting, Consensus and Due Process.Ability to create extension or subset is addressed by Open Interface.Ability to prevent predatory practices is addressed by Open Change.The six principles proposed by B. Perens map fully ontoeight of the ten rights of Open Standards proposed. B. Perens does notdirectly address the desires for or against One World or the end user right ofOn-going Support. This is one affirmative test of the completeness of therights of Open Standards proposed. 5. Standardization Areas of Influence Each of the ten rights of Open Standards relates to one ormore of Areas of Influence (AoI) of standardization: creators, implementers andusers. There are specific economic drivers in each AoI:The creation of standards is driven by potential marketdevelopment and market control issues.>The implementation of standards is driven by production/distributioncost efficiencies.The use of standards is driven by a potential cost reduction, dueto the standard, on the user organization. In the case of standards used bypolitical entities (e.g., countries), the use or avoidance of a standard mayrepresent a political efficiency as well as or instead of an economic one.While there is some overlap among these economic drivers,e.g., market development and distribution cost efficiency, each AoI has adistinct economic motivation. This makes it necessary to consider each areaseparately. The relation of the ten rights to the AoI is shown in Table 1,below. Table 1. Creators, implementers and users have distincteconomic motivation. Rights AoI Crea•‰or ImpleåÌenter User 1 Open Meeting x 2 Consensus x 3 Due Process x 4 One World x x x 5 Open IPR x x x 6 Open Documents x x 7 Open Change x x 8 Open Interface x x 9 Open Use x x 10 On-going Support x 6. Understanding the Ten Rights of OpenStandards The first four rights are at the heart of the World TradeOrganization (WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Code of GoodPractice [12]. The ANSI view of open standards concept requires the firstthree concepts for all ANSI accredited standards organizations [13]. As Table1 identifies, the first three rights are AoI for standards creators only. Thefourth concept, One World, is supported by ANSI but not required. The fifthconcept, Open IPR, has been formally added to the US standards developmentprocess by ANSI and many SSOs. Currently the widest concerns regarding Open Standards focuson One World and Open IPR. One World addresses standards as barriers to tradeor enablers of trade. Open IPR impacts the profitability of all communicationsequipment companies today. The additional five rights represent open standardsrights which are emerging, but not yet fully supported by most SSOs. Table 1identifies that the five additional rights are AoI of the implementers andusers of the implementations of standards. Each of the ten rights is discussedin detail below. 6.1. Open Meeting ?All stakeholders can participate? is a mantra of manyformal SSOs. But this mantra does not address all the desires for OpenMeetings. Some formal SSOs (e.g., ITU) and many consortia (e.g., W3C) have apay-to-become-a-member policy. Paying to become a member is a significanteconomic barrier when a potential standardization participant is not sure theyare even interested in attending a single meeting. Participation expenses, unlessquite low, are part of real barriers to participation for students, many usersand even start-up companies in the field. Currently only a few SSOs such asthe Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF, the standardization organization forthe Internet), and the IEEE offer low cost-per-meeting participation.Currently openness of meetings is deemed to be met (e.g.,under many SSO requirements) if all current stakeholders can participate in thestandards creation process. But, as technology has become more complex, userparticipation in standards creation has declined [14]. When the largestmajority of stakeholders (users) no longer participate such a definition ofopen meetings is no longer functional. Transparency is a useful concept to quantify both OpenMeetings and Open Documents (see below). There are two broad indicators of thelevel of transparency possible in Open Meetings:1. All stakeholders can pay to become a member (currentstatus of many SSOs).2. Any person/organization can participate in thestandardization process with acceptable cost to join on a per meeting basis. 6.2. Consensus, and 6.3. Due Process Like Open Meetings, Consensus and Due Process are consideredbasic by formal SSOs to the openness of the standards creation process. Theseconcepts may even be seen as necessary to support the Open Meeting concept. Surprisingly, the IETF, which many find to be an example of a more open SSO,does not meet these criteria as the IETF Area Directors have a dictatoriallevel of power over the standardization process in their area [15]. Note that the first three rights of Open Standards onlyaddress the creation AoI of standardization. Most formal SSOs have notaddressed the concepts of open standards beyond this. This is a significantomission that can only be viewed negatively by those who are more focused onthe implementation and use AoI. 6.4. Open World Open World is the principle of a single world-wide standardfor a single purpose. This right is supported by the WTO to prevent technicalbarriers to trade. Politically this is a very contentious area. There arenational standards for food processing that are based on religious beliefs(e.g., halal and kosher). There are standards for the environment, health,medical care, and social welfare that create an imbalance in cost betweencountries that implement them (richer) and countries that don?t (poorer). Toavoid these contentious issues, most formal SSOs currently support, but do notrequire, coordination of their standards work with world-wide standards. Thisallows, but does not favor, divergent regional or national standards.In the richer countries, the rise of consortia, the declineof publicly funded research, aggressive commercialism and weak SSO managementmake it more difficult to achieve a single standard for a single functionworld-wide. The five different incompatible versions of the 3G cellularstandards are an example of these effects. Initially these five 3G versionswill operate in different geographic areas, but eventually users will demandworld-wide compatibility. It appears likely that standardization organizationswill continue to proliferate and create incompatible standards for similarcapabilities. This may be viewed as an indication of standardization disaster[16], or as an indication of the need to increase support of Open Interfaces(see 6.8, below). 6.5. Open IPR Most formal SSOs and many consortia consider that Open IPRrefers to the fact that holders of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) must makeavailable on Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms their IPR(implementation). This is only part of the issue of Open IPR as RAND is notsufficient to allow other implementers to determine the impact ofstandards-based IPR on their costs. Competing implementers have a right todetermine the exact cost of IPR before they accept its inclusion in a newstandard. This issue has led many implementers to consortia as consortia oftenrequire commercial licensing of related IPR. This practice defines the cost ofthe IPR to the implementer. While commercial licensing is the least openprocess, it may not be more costly than the RAND approach. 0. Commerciallicensing may be the most prevalent approach to IPR arrangements. It is alsothe least transparent. In this case the holder of IPR and the potentialimplementer of the IPR agree privately on commercial terms and conditions forthe implementer to use the holder?s IPR. J. Band [17] describes four additional levels of increasingopenness relating to IPR: 1. Microsoftbelieves that interface specifications should be proprietary, but will permitopenness by licensing the specifications to firms developing attaching (but notcompeting) products.2. The ComputerSystems Policy Project (CSPP) also believes that interface specifications canbe proprietary, but will permit openness by licensing the specifications onRAND terms for the development of products on either side of the interface.3. The AmericanCommittee for Interoperable Systems (ACIS) believes that software interfacespecifications are not protectable under copyright, and that therefore reverseengineering (including disassembly) to discern those specifications does notinfringe the author?s copyright.4. SunMicrosystems believes that critical National Information Infrastructure (NII)software and hardware interface specifications should receive neither copyrightnor patent protection. This fourth approach is discussed further under OpenChange, below.The above segmentation of IPR issues can be further refined:The approach #2 (RAND - themanner of operation of most formal SSOs currently) might be more acceptable toimplementers if an IPR arbitration function existed when IPR is identifiedduring the creation/modification of a standard [18].The approach #4 (no copyright orpatents) - might be more acceptable to implementers if IPR on basic interfaceswas prevented but IPR on proprietary extensions was allowed. This could bepractical using the technical concepts of Open Interfaces, below. 6.6. Open Documents Open Documents is the right to see any documents from anSSO. As a standardization right, this is connected to Open Meeting, above. The transparency of a meeting is closely related to the availability of thedocuments from the meeting. All standardization documentation falls into twoclasses: work-in-progress documents (e.g., individual technical proposals,meeting reports), and completed standard documents (e.g., standards, testprocedures). Different AoI need to access these different classes ofdocuments. Standards creators do not require Open Documents rights as they areinvolved in the creation of all the documents. Standards implementers needaccess to standards work-in-progress documents, to understand specifictechnical decisions, as well as access to completed standards. Implementationtesters (users and their surrogates) need access to completed standards.The Internet Society (ISOC) supports anon-government-recognized standards making organization, the IETF, which has pioneerednew standards development and distribution procedures based on the internetitself. While the IETF does not meet the criteria for consensus and dueprocess, the IETF is perhaps the most transparent standardization organization(see Table 3, below). Using the internet, the IETF makes available on the webboth its standards, termed RFCs, and the drafts of such standards at no charge. In fact, using the facilities of the internet, committee discussion andindividual technical proposals related to the development of standards can bemonitored by anyone and response offered. This transparent development of IETFstandards has been successful enough that some other SSOs have also increasedtheir transparency (e.g., ETSI). Ultimately, as technology use expands, everyone becomesstakeholders in technical standards. Using the internet, access to committeedocuments and discussion may be opened to almost all. In this way, informedchoices may be made about bringing new work to such a standards committee, andpotential new standardization participants could evaluate their desires toattend meetings. There are three levels of transparency in Open Documents:1. Work-in-progress documents are only available tocommittee members (standards creators). Standards are for sale (current stateof most formal SSOs).2. Work-in-progress documents are only available tocommittee members (standards creators). Standards are available for reasonableor no cost (current state of many consortia).3. Work-in-progress documents and standards are availablefor reasonable or no cost (current state of IETF). 6.7. Open Change Controlling changes is a powerful tool to control interfaceswhen system updates are distributed over the internet and stored in computermemory. Even with the most liberal of IPR policies (#4 in Open IPR, above),Microsoft would still be able to control its Windows Application ProgrammingInterfaces (APIs) by distributing updates (changes) to users that updated bothsides of the API interface. Without a similar distribution at the same time, competing vendors? products on one side of thesame API could be rendered incompatible by a Microsoft update.Standards creators do not require Open Change rights as theyare always involved in all the documents. Standards implementers need accessto changes to update their products. Implementation testers (users and theirsurrogates) need access to the current standards.The only way that interfaces can remain open is when allchanges are presented, discussed and approved openly (the first six rights). Considering today?s environment of computers connected over the Internet,identifying and requiring Open Change is vital to the concept of OpenStandards. Surprisingly, this is not widely understood. The original judicialorder to breakup the Microsoft personal computer operating system andapplication software monopoly did not directly address this key issue [19]. 6.8. Open Interface Open Interface is a technical approach that supportscompatibility to previous systems (backward compatibility) and to futuresystems (forward compatibility) that share the same interface. The idea thatOpen Standards should embody such a principle is relatively new. But interestin Open Interfaces has been increasing due to the considerable success of OpenInterfaces in facsimile (T.30), telephone modems (V.8 and V.32 auto baudprocedures), and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) transceivers (G.994.1). One way of achieving Open Interfaces is to implement a newprotocol termed an ?etiquette? [18]. Etiquettes are a protocol used only tonegotiate other protocols and related options or features. The purpose ofetiquettes is connectivity and expandability. Proper etiquettes provide:Connectivity, negotiating between two devices in different spatial locations to determine compatible protocols. Means to allow both proprietary and public enhancements to the interface that do not impact backward or forward compatibility. Adaptability, so that one communications system can become compatible with a different communications system. Easier system troubleshooting by identifying specificincompatibilities.As long as the etiquette is common between the equipment atboth ends, it is possible to receive the code identifying each protocol supportedby the equipment at a remote site. Checking this code against a data base ofsuch codes on the web or in a manual, the user can determine what change isnecessary in his system or the remote system to enable compatibility. One of the earliest etiquettes is ITU Recommendation T.30which is used in all Group 3 facsimile machines. Part of its function includesmechanisms to interoperate with previous Group 2 facsimile machines whileallowing new features (public as well as proprietary) to be added to the systemwithout the possibility of losing backward compatibility. In another case, theITU standard V.8 is used to select among the V.34 and higher modem modulations. More recent etiquette examples include, ITU G.994.1 for DSL, W3C ExtendedMarkup Language (XML) and IETF Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).As an example of the usefulness of Open Interfaces, considerMicrosoft APIs. Assume that a standard based upon the Microsoft Windows API iscreated. Then any other vendor could create an OS to work with Microsoft?sapplications or create applications to work with Microsoft?s OS. Assuming thisstandard API also supports an etiquette which allows the negotiation of newfeatures across the standard API. Then, if any vendor (including Microsoft) identifieda new function such as short message service or video conferencing that was notsupported across the basic API, that vendor could offer the proprietary newfunction, using the etiquette, to users that purchased the new vendor?s OS andapplications. Since an Open Interface etiquette supports proprietaryextensions [20], each vendor controls the way the proprietary function isaccessed across the API, but does not change the previous compatibility ofsystems using the API. In this manner a vendor may add proprietary value andgain appropriate economic rewards, based on the desirability of the vendor?snew function. Seven technical features are necessary for an etiquette tosupport backward and forward compatibility over the broadest range of circumstances[20]. Based on which of these features is implemented, an Open Interface maybe quantified. Currently the Open Interfaces function has only been applied tospecific standards not as an SSO requirement, so no detailed quantification isoffered in Table 3, below. 6.9. Open Use Open Use identifies the value of conformance forimplementers and users. To the implementers, some means is required to assurethat their implementation of a standard works as they intended. To supportthis level of conformance, a testing event may be held (sometimes termed aplug-fest) where multiple implementers gather to check their implementationswith each other. For the user a simpler conformance indication may be all thatis necessary. As example, in the European Union (EU), the CE marking is themanufacturer?s indication that the product meets the essential safetyrequirements of all relevant EU Directives. The CE marking indicating safetyconformance reduces the user?s safety concerns. Two levels of Open User are quantified: 1. Open Use via plug-fests or over the internet testing(implementer).2. Open Use via identified conformance (user). 6.10. On-going Support On-going Support of accredited standards is of specificinterest to the users of standardized implementations as it can increase thelife of their capital investment in equipment with standard interfaces. Thesupport of an existing standard consists of four distinct phases after thestandard is created (Table 2). Table 2. Phases of standardization during a standard?slifetime. Phase Activity Description AoI 1. Create standards The major task of SSOs creators 2. Fixes (changes) Rectify problems identified in initial implementations implementers 3. Maintenance (changes) Add new features and keep the standard up to date with related standards work users 4. Availability (no changes) Continue to publish, without continuing maintenance users 5. Rescission Removal of the published standard from distribution users These phases may be used to quantify the on-going supportthat a specific SSO provides by identifying which steps of the On-going Supportprocess are publicly announced by a specific SSO. This is a difficult right toquantify as each SSO has different procedures for making each phase public.It is difficult to interest users in the first phase ofstandardization [14]. Even the second phase standardization may be of moreinterest to the developers and implementers than the users. The next threephases, however, are where users have a clear interest in maintaining theirinvestment. Greater user involvement in the later three phases ofstandardization could be practical using the internet to distribute relateddocumentation. Greater user participation in these phases of standardizationmight also increase SSO membership and income. And specific SSOs, and theimplementations standardized by that SSO, would be more valuable to users ifthe users recognized that the longevity of standards they had invested in werebetter protected by that SSO. 7. How Open are Different SSOs? Table 3, below, offers the author?s quantification, based ona review of each SSO?s documentation (9/2004), of the specific rights theseSSOs support. By quantifying the 10 rights of Open Standards it is practicalto examine any standardization processes to determine what rights are supportedand what rights are not and what economic shifts this causes. Then thepolitical, social, economic, technical and business implications of the processmay be more rigorously analyzed and understood. Table 3. Rating the ten rights of Open Standards atdifferent SSOs. Requirements ITU (note 2) ETSI (note 2) IEEE (note 2) ATIS T1 (note 2) W3C IETF Consortia (note 3) 1 Open Meeting 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 Consensus (note 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 Due Process (note 1) 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Open World (note 1) 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 Open IPR 2 2 2 2 4 3 (note 4) 0 6 Open Documents 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 7 Open Changes (note 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 Open Interfaces note 5 note 5 note 5 note 5 note 5 note 5 note 5 9 Open Use 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 (note 6) 10 On-going Support 2 4 2 2 4 4 1 Score 10 14 11 11 14 16 7 Note 1: For Requirements 2, 3, 4 & 7: Yes = 1, No = 0Note 2: The ITU, ETSI, IEEE, and ATIS are formal SSOs.Note 3: This hypothetical consortium is modeled on the descriptionfound at ConsortiumInfo.org [21].Note 4: The IETF IPR policy desires a royalty free model,but is flexible.Note 5: Open Interfaces has only been applied to specificstandards.Note 6: Many consortia support plug-fests and conformancetesting as part of their members desire to promote associated products. 8. Conclusions Sometimes commercial organizations like to term their work?open standards? [2] when they meet just a few of the ten criteria identified. None of the SSOs discussed even address all of the ten rights described andeach SSO differs significantly in the level of each right they do meet. So itshould not be surprising that implementers and users consider all SSOs with ajaundiced eye. This attempt to quantify Open Standards suggests that thisimplementers? and users? view is a wise one. While it is true that additional levels of each of the tenrights may emerge, the ten basic rights presented here are the broadestpossible view of the meaning of Open Standards. Are fewer rights sufficient? That question can only be answered when each stakeholder understands theconsequences of what they may be giving up. The comprehension of the rightsthat are supported by each SSO is usually buried in the fine print of theprocedures of each SSO. Until each SSO clearly indicates which rights of OpenStandards they support and at what level, Open Standards will just be anothermarketing slogan. These rights, like most others, won?t be achieved without astruggle. Heed the call, implementers and users, if you want Open Standards,demand your rights! The author would like to thank the reviewers and co-chairsof the HICSS-38 Minitrack on Standards and Standardization for their excellentcomments and suggestions. 9. References [1] Eric Steven Raymond, Homesteading the Noosphere, section 2, August 25, 2000. http://www.csazar.org/interesting/The_Open_Source_Reader.pdfSeptember, 2004. [2] Bill Gates, ?Compete, Don?t Delete,? TheEconomist, June 13, 1998. [3] Industrial Standardization, National Industrial Conference Board Inc., NewYork, 1929. [4] Carl Cargill, Information TechnologyStandardization, Digital Press, page 114,1989. [5] Andrew Updegrove, ?Consortia and the Role of theGovernment in Standards Setting,? Standards Policy for the InformationInfrastructure, editors: Brian Kahin andJanet Abbate, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1995. [6] Andrew Updegrove, ?Best Practices and StandardSetting (How the ?Pros? Do It),? The Standards Edge, Dynamic Tension, editor: Sherrie Bolin, Bolin Communications, 2004. [7] IEEE web site http://standards.ieee.org/sa/sa-view.htmlSeptember, 2004. [8] ETSI web site http://www.etsi.org/%40lis/background.htmSeptember, 2004. [9] ANSI web site http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/overview/overview.aspx?menuid=3September, 2004. [10] Joel West, ?What are Open Standards? Implicationsfor Adoption, Competition and Policy,? paper presented at the Standards andPublic Policy Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, May 13-14, 2004. [11] Bruce Perens, ?Open Standards Principles andPractice,? http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.htmlSeptember, 2004. [12] WTO web site http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbtagr_e.htm#Annex%203September, 2004 [13] Procedures for the Development and Coordinationof American National Standards, AmericanNational Standards Institute, April 1998. [14] Kenji Naemura, ?User involvement in the life cyclesof information technology and telecommunications standards,? Standards,Innovation and Competitiveness, editors: R.Hawkins, R. Mansell and J. Skea, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK and US,1995. [15] IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures, RFC2418, September, 1998. >http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txtSeptember, 2004. [16] Carl Cargill, Sherrie Bolin, ?Standardization: aFailing Paradigm,? paper presented at the Standards and Public PolicyConference, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, May 13-14, 2004. [17] Jonathan Band, ?Competing Definitions of ?Openness?on the NII,? Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, editors: Brian Kahin and Janet Abbate, The MITPress, Cambridge, MA, 1995. [18] Carl Shapiro, ?Setting Compatibility StandardsCooperation or Collusion,? Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, edited by R. C. Dreyfuss, D. L. Zimmerman and H.First, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2001. [19] United States District Court for the District ofColumbia Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ). [20] Ken Krechmer, ?The Fundamental Nature of Standards:Technical Perspective,? IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 38 No. 6, p. 70, June, 2000. [21] ConsortiumInfo.com web site: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/whatSeptember, 2004.Ken KrechmerCommunications Standards Review757 Greer RoadPalo Alto, California 94303-3024 USAVOICE: +1 650 856-8836 --- FACSIMILE (Group 3): +1 650 856-6591e-mail: krechmer@csrstds.comThis page was last updated January 17, 2005.Return to CSR Home PageGo to a Listing of Ken's Published Papers |
|
