> Il 28/11/2020 02:52 Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > So, what's interesting to me here is that we have a very good > possibility of at least one, and perhaps many, jurisdictions > imposing interoperability requirements on various digital platforms > as a remedy for competition issues.* I am quite involved in the European one, so I am happy to see this mentioned here. Also, it is rare to have opportunities to discuss this topic with non-Europeans and with people from the global platforms, and it is a pity. > A third option that hasn't been discussed as much is leveraging > existing SDOs to do the technical work that enables interoperability > -- ideally using already-existing protocols and formats where > necessary. This is the likely model in Europe, where the Commission already has procedures to "recognize" standards developed by SDOs and bless them. There would still be a regulatory authority (a single European one or a constellation of national ones) that would define the policy objectives, but then the SDOs would be scouted to find suitable existing standards, or to see if any of them wants to develop one. > There are lots of open questions about how this would work, but > first I wonder how the IETF would react -- if a competition > authority came to us and said "if you create a standard that > promotes interoperability for scope _foo_ in timeframe _bar_ using > your normal process, we will leverage that in our remedy", would we > rise to the occasion? I'd also like to know. However, I'd say that if Europe ever wanted to do something like this, perhaps the first door that would be knocked upon would be ETSI, not the IETF. This is due not just to the basic fact that the "E" in ETSI stands for European, but also to the fact that, in the general perception, the IETF does not seem to like cooperating with governments, or even to recognize them a role. Also, there is indeed some concern that open, consensus-based SDOs where the global platforms are strongly represented could fail in producing any suitable standard, as such a standard would negatively affect the interests of a significant part of the participants, which would thus prevent consensus from ever being reached. This explains, for example, why the bylaws of the GAIA-X Foundation(*) exclude non-European companies (including European subsidiaries of non-European groups) from applying for leadership positions. > Past history like DNT in the W3C suggests that there's a will in at > least some standards fora to provide affordances for the law. I would not mention DNT to governments as an example of how this cooperation can work, given its total failure... > Can we do the necessary coordination to actually make it work? Would > we be able to deliver? And would the IETF have an answer to the concern above? (*) GAIA-X is the effort launched by the German and French governments to promote a standard framework for cloud infrastructure, so that customers could freely move across vendors without being locked in. -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bertola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
