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

[Andrea Glorioso <[e-mail]>]

Dear Brian, dear all,

(sorry for the belated reaction - work + health +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE ).

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Andrea,
>
> I can't speak for Christian, but I would like to comment
> on these points.
>

Sure - thanks for the comments.


> On 14/02/2014 06:35, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>


> > 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.
>
> That is IMHO certainly the most useful thing a public authority can do
> (as the EC took the lead in Europe in telco demonopolisation in the past).
>

I understand.

I think there can be an important role in stimulating new technologies;
> I suspect that EC actions had more than a little effect in stimulating
> GSM for example, and that required stimulating multivendor standards
> of course.
>

Just to be clear - the stimulation of new technologies does not only pass
through competition policy (fight against abuses of dominant positions,
cartels etc). In fact, it might require forms of intervention which some
parties might consider to be an undue alteration of the "market" and in
some cases even anti-competitive.

So there is often a fine line to walk here.


> But when there is already a very healthy and vigorous open voluntary
> standards body in place, I don't see what value a public authority
> can add.
>

Well, public authorities are often very important users of technology. So
their participation in the definition of the specifications / standards of
such
technology might actually be useful for later adoption.

I also believe that standard setting which does not take into account the
broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies will
be used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities are
an important - but not the only, and perhaps in some cases not even the
primary - source for these broader considerations.

Which does not mean, by the way, that public authorities should be in
the driving seat (I'm saying this only because I know the usual reaction
to the notion I mentioned above is "oh! You want to take-over!" which is
not what I, or for that matter the Commission as an official position,
want to do).

[SNIP]



> > 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.
>
> Definitely. In the Internet, local standards are a big waste of
> effort. Note: I'm talking about infrastructure. Obviously there is
> scope for local entrepreneurship for applications that match a
> particular culture or economy. But that shouldn't concern the EU,
> should it?
>

I'm not sure why it shouldn't concern the EU. Care to elaborate?


> > 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.
>
> I don't see how to do better. We surely don't need yet more SDOs.
>

To be clear: I am not suggesting we need a new SDO. But I think it's useful
to put very clearly on the table what would be the pros and cons of having
one,
and this is why I asked the question.

However, if there is a shared agreement that more structured and
bi-directional
dialogues and engagements between the "technical community" and the world
of governments / public authorities would be beneficial (and quite frankly
I'm
not convinced we are there yet) then one can find middle solutions between
'ad hoc' liaisons and new, full-blown SDOs.

Ciao,

Andrea

--
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