Tuesday Dec 13, 2011

Showdown on EU Standardization

The short story is, the Commission has a proposal on the table for a slight update to the inner workings of European Standardization. The key part of the proposal has the form of a Regulation. The regulation would recognize technical specifications in the field of ICT.  However, a public body must first apply for recognition of such specification, so this is not akin to "opening the floodgates" to all kinds of specifications.  Also, the Commission, working with an advisory multi-stakeholder platform must find they have been developed in the open and transparent manner in which standards should be developed. 

Global and open standards matter in ICT

Open standards are commonly understood to be agreed upon specifications that are developed in accountable and transparent processes that are open to all stakeholders and widely available and implementable (this view is fairly common corresponds to the EU’s EIF definition).  Open standards, understood this way, is the only kind of specifications that counts for governments. Now, standards bodies differ in the way they provide transparency and openness. While stakeholders might feel the need to participate wherever standards are made, all should work towards more openness and transparency, particularly governments. What the Commission has proposed would foster more transparency.  This is a key role of government.  

The Commission's proposal is fine as is

The effect would be to bring the EU up to date with the reality of ICT standardization. It is a good thing. It would not change that much, and it would not destroy the "European Standardization System" and its possible merits (some are convinced it works well, and I will leave that debate for now).

This proposal is currently being discussed in Council and Parliament. The gist of it is, some current beneficiaries of status quo still resist, notably CEN/CENELEC, some non-ICT industry players worried about spill-over to their sectors, and some national standards bodies (NSBs). Their position used to be scrap the whole reform.  Given that this does not seem feasible, the new tactic is: merge Articles 9 and 10.  This does not work.

The thing is: the current proposal is FINE. Merging those two articles is not meaningful. Article 9 defines the basic reform: recognition. Article 10 specifically applies the reform to the public procurement directives. Both are necessary and important.

If Council or Parliament want to introduce any change at all to Articles 9 and 10, here is a suggestion:

Article 9: Either on proposal from a public authority referred to in Directive 2004/18/EC or on its own initiative the Commission may decide to recognise technical specifications in the field of ICT which are not national, European or international standards and meet the requirements set out in Annex II, as ICT standards for referencing in policies and public procurement.

Article 10: Recognised ICT standards referred to in Article 9 shall constitute common technical specifications referred to in Directives 2004/17/CE and 2004/18/CE, and Regulation (EC) No 2342/2002.

Friday Jun 03, 2011

Statements on OpenOffice.org Contribution to Apache

Statements on OpenOffice.org Contribution to Apache from Oracle, IBM and Apache. [Read More]
About

Trond Undheim, Ph.D, Director of Standards Strategy and Policy at the Oracle Corporation, speaker, entrepreneur, blogger, and author, is one of the world’s leading experts on technology and society. LinkedIn profile

Search

Archives
« April 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today