Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement

["cdel.firsthand.net" <[e-mail]>]

Inline 

> On 13 Feb 2014, at 17:35, Andrea Glorioso <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Christian,
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, cdel.firsthand.net <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> There are plenty of "standards" bodies. 
> 
> Agreed. That's a fact. :)
>  
>> Mostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and their adoption in the market not define them.
>  
>> Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by vested market dominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact on competitive open networks and markets over them. But in a global space with many local markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engaging local interests globally in standards activities that reflect real market needs rather than defining some local special sauce.
> 
> A few points, trying in earnest to understand your position.
> 
> First, you seem to take the position that the only role for public authorities should be to avoid abuse of dominant positions / market power (including, I assume, via cartels) in the definition of standards.
> 

No that isn't what I wrote. I was specific to describe need for a split of effective responsibilities between policy oversight and standards negotiation. The examples I give are indicative not a gospel. 

> Secondly, your reasoning seems to be that as long as open networks and markets remain open, and standard- or specification-making activities are not "gamed" (for whatever definition of "gaming" one might have), then the final result will be good.

Not good but open to innovation and change. Unlike telephone networks which prevent innovation by asserting vertically integrated ownership rights.

I'd also split the design from any specific implementations which you did not. So IETF designs and standardises (rough consensus) on an agreed demarcation of two independent real world implementations (running code) to prove it works and there are independent references to make it work in practice but the market dynamics of operating a network that chooses to deploy or not deploy those standards is a separate issue . Often locally significant.


> 
> Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are sub-optimal and that one should rather try to make sure that local communities / people / groups engage in "global" standards.

If you want to connect globally it is necessary I think to have the same basic rules or standards.

> 
> I would like to make sure I fully and well understood your points before expressing some further (personal :) opinions on them, and perhaps trying to see how this could match with the rationale for the section that has been quoted from COM(2014) 72/4.
>  
>> Liaisons can and have been established  in european context. I remember helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval after IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would observe that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has scope.
> 
> I don't question the usefulness of liaisons, quite the contrary. I'm just wondering (honestly - I will not repeat the qualifier again :) if they are sufficient.
> 

Communications without understanding or to give the tech sense "clue" is not sufficient by definition. It turns out to be very hard to impart and share clue. 


> Best,
> 
> Andrea
> 
Hope that helps 

Christian
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro