another thought for longer term considerataion ... the IETF may contemplate
affirming the WTO principles for The Development Of International Standards
(for interest also is the ANSI "Key Issues Impacting Global Standardization
and Conformance: Today and Tomorrow"
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Key_Issues_Impacting_Global_Standardization_and_Conformance.pdf )
There is much overlap between the elements of the Modern Global standards
paradigm and the WTO principles
Indeed a case might be made that by some that while ITU itself is
considered to be an international standards organizations it is in fact
overstepping the coherence principle below
A. Decision Of The Committee On Principles For The
Development Of International Standards, Guides And Recommendations With
Relation To Articles 2, 5 And Annex 3 Of The Agreement
Decision[1]
1. The following principles and procedures should be
observed, when international standards, guides and recommendations (as
mentioned under Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement for the
preparation of mandatory technical regulations, conformity assessment
procedures and voluntary standards) are elaborated, to ensure transparency,
openness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance,
coherence, and to address the concerns of developing countries.
2. The same principles should also be observed when
technical work or a part of the international standard development is
delegated under agreements or contracts by international standardizing
bodies to other relevant organizations, including regional bodies.
1. Transparency
3. All essential information regarding current work
programmes, as well as on proposals for standards, guides and
recommendations under consideration and on the final results should be made
easily accessible to at least all interested parties in the territories of
at least all WTO Members. Procedures should be established so that adequate
time and opportunities are provided for written comments. The information
on these procedures should be effectively disseminated.
4. In providing the essential information, the
transparency procedures should, at a minimum, include:
(a) the publication of a notice at an early appropriate stage,
in such a manner as to enable interested parties to become acquainted with
it, that the international standardizing body proposes to develop a
particular standard;
(b) the notification or other communication through
established mechanisms to members of the international standardizing body,
providing a brief description of the scope of the draft standard, including
its objective and rationale. Such communications shall take place at an
early appropriate stage, when amendments can still be introduced and
comments taken into account;
(c) upon request, the prompt provision to members of the
international standardizing body of the text of the draft standard;
(d) the provision of an adequate period of time for interested
parties in the territory of at least all members of the international
standardizing body to make comments in writing and take these written
comments into account in the further consideration of the standard;
(e) the prompt publication of a standard upon adoption; and
(f) to publish periodically a work programme containing
information on the standards currently being prepared and adopted.
5. It is recognized that the publication and communication
of notices, notifications, draft standards, comments, adopted standards or
work programmes electronically, via the Internet, where feasible, can
provide a useful means of ensuring the timely provision of information. At
the same time, it is also recognized that the requisite technical means may
not be available in some cases, particularly with regard to developing
countries. Accordingly, it is important that procedures are in place to
enable hard copies of such documents to be made available upon request.
2. Openness
6. Membership of an international standardizing body
should be open on a non-discriminatory basis to relevant bodies of at least
all WTO Members. This would include openness without discrimination with
respect to the participation at the policy development level and at every
stage of standards development, such as the:
(a) proposal and acceptance of new work items;
(b) technical discussion on proposals;
(c) submission of comments on drafts in order that they can be
taken into account;
(d) reviewing existing standards;
(e) voting and adoption of standards; and
(f) dissemination of the adopted standards.
7. Any interested member of the international
standardizing body, including especially developing country Members, with an
interest in a specific standardization activity should be provided with
meaningful opportunities to participate at all stages of standard
development. It is noted that with respect to standardizing bodies within
the territory of a WTO Member that have accepted the Code of Good Practice
for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards by Standardizing
Bodies (Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement) participation in a particular
international standardization activity takes place, wherever possible,
through one delegation representing all standardizing bodies in the
territory that have adopted, or expected to adopt, standards for the
subject-matter to which the international standardization activity relates.
This is illustrative of the importance of participation in the international
standardizing process accommodating all relevant interests.
3. Impartiality and Consensus
8. All relevant bodies of WTO Members should be provided
with meaningful opportunities to contribute to the elaboration of an
international standard so that the standard development process will not
give privilege to, or favour the interests of, a particular supplier/s,
country/ies or region/s. Consensus procedures should be established that
seek to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to
reconcile any conflicting arguments.
9. Impartiality should be accorded throughout all the
standards development process with respect to, among other things:
(a) access to participation in work;
(b) submission of comments on drafts;
(c) consideration of views expressed and comments made;
(d) decision-making through consensus;
(e) obtaining of information and documents;
(f) dissemination of the international standard;
(g) fees charged for documents;
(h) right to transpose the international standard into a
regional or national standard; and
(i) revision of the international standard.
4. Effectiveness and Relevance
10. In order to serve the interests of the WTO membership in
facilitating international trade and preventing unnecessary trade barriers,
international standards need to be relevant and to effectively respond to
regulatory and market needs, as well as scientific and technological
developments in various countries. They should not distort the global
market, have adverse effects on fair competition, or stifle innovation and
technological development. In addition, they should not give preference to
the characteristics or requirements of specific countries or regions when
different needs or interests exist in other countries or regions. Whenever
possible, international standards should be performance based rather than
based on design or descriptive characteristics.
11. Accordingly, it is important that international
standardizing bodies:
(a) take account of relevant regulatory or market needs, as
feasible and appropriate, as well as scientific and technological
developments in the elaboration of standards;
(b) put in place procedures aimed at identifying and reviewing
standards that have become obsolete, inappropriate or ineffective for
various reasons; and
(c) put in place procedures aimed at improving communication
with the World Trade Organization.
5. Coherence
12. In order to avoid the development of conflicting
international standards, it is important that international standardizing
bodies avoid duplication of, or overlap with, the work of other
international standardizing bodies. In this respect, cooperation and
coordination with other relevant international bodies is essential.
6. Development Dimension
13. Constraints on developing countries, in particular, to
effectively participate in standards development, should be taken into
consideration in the standards development process. Tangible ways of
facilitating developing countries' participation in international standards
development should be sought. The impartiality and openness of any
international standardization process requires that developing countries are
not excluded de facto from the process. With respect to improving
participation by developing countries, it may be appropriate to use
technical assistance, in line with Article 11 of the TBT Agreement.
Provisions for capacity building and technical assistance within
international standardizing bodies are important in this context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] G/TBT/9, 13 November 2000, para. 20 and Annex 4.
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
www.gtwassociates.com
301 421 4138
----- Original Message -----
From: "GTW" <gtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "IAB" <iab@xxxxxxx>; "IETF-Announce"
<ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IAB" <iab@xxxxxxx>; "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
I support the thrust of the "Modern Global Standards Paradigm" It is
particularly timely as the US formally prepares for meetings of the ITU
and CITEL and there are some aspirations from some members and staff at ITU
inconsistent with the market based approach to standards setting the
document embraces. I support IETF Chair and the IAB Chair signing such a
document.
While I am content with the wording of the section on IP this text is
nevertheless imprecise.
clip from
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf
4. Availability. Standards specifications are made accessible to all for
implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have
defined
procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair
terms.
Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free (especially
where
open source is commonplace) to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
terms
(FRAND).
end clip
If there were time for tweaking it would be helpful. What are time
constraints? The first sentence seems to be describing the availability
of specifications to users ... this is the issue of copyrights and fees
charged for copies of standards. Specifications have to be available to
users under reasonable terms but not necessarily for free. But the words
are not clear that is what is being addressed. The second sentence seems
to describe that licenses to practice essential patent claims related to
a standards are available under "fair terms" However the global patent
policy concept generally is that such licenses should be available under
"reasonable and non discriminatory" terms. The single term
"reasonable and non discriminatory" covers the situation where there may
be a "fee" involved or not. There may be non fee based terms in what
other wise be called "royalty free" licenses It is not that RAND and FRAND
are different from "royalty free" It is that "royalty free" falls under
the overall condition of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory term
when there may be non royalty terms involved. Sometimes the "royalty
free" situation is described as "RAND(0)" I am also curious about the
IETF experience with its patent policy. What is further background to
the statement that "often our IPR terms at IETF end up being much worse
than that." The comments below that the paragraph does not accurately
describe the IETF experience are worrisome.
clip from
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary
Cullen Jennings: I was just noting that the IPR terms vary from RF to
FRAND. I wish that was true. But I think that often our IPR terms at
IETF end up being much worse than that.
Russ: Understand.
Leslie Daigle: I wanted just to help you out a bit by popping up a
level and giving the broader context of this whole statement. You have
alluded to the fact that it was born from discussions with a number of
organizations. Everyone should appreciate that Russ is presenting today
something that he thinks is viable for the IETF. The challenge has been
that indeed the words have been discussed extensively for a period of
time and there was fairly wide divergence exactly on the point that
Cullen just mentioned. Have been seeking terminology that says something
positive about how to do things, and also encompasses a broad range of
ways that different organizations do things. We are very different from
the WC3, which is very different from the IEEE. But we are trying to
capture things that are positive, constructive, new -- as compared to
the establishment, if you will, of the SDO world. So that has been the
challenge. Having input from people in terms of support or not is
probably quite useful. The document -- and I will personally take
responsibility for some of this -- is not in the best English ever. So,
some of the comments on it would be better if it were written this way,
you'll get a polite smile and a nod, and we will take that into
consideration in the next iteration. So, just by way of context, it is
a joint effort, and I hope we are capturing something useful that
expresses something the community believes in. Because personally, I
think the really novel thing is to stand up and say, there are formal
standards development organization in the world, and there are other
organizations that get together and are doing something that is
slightly different, being driven by different motivations. We are
seeking technical excellence, are dedicated to being open, are
dedicated to providing standards that will be built by industry. And
that isn't an immature form. We are hoping not to grow up into the
more traditional form. We are trying to make a statement so that more
people understand that this is a real thing, and that it is valuable.
Scott Bradner: I made some comments on this document to the authors. I
think it is a very important thing to say, for the reasons that Leslie
just described. But I do worry that it has to be accurate. And I do
believe that the specific text of the IPR section is not accurate, when
it comes to the IETF. And could be used against us because it is not
what we do.
Russ: Thank you, and I can tell you that those words are still under
discussion. The concerns that Cullen any you raised are representative
of a comment that I have already shared with the people trying to put
this to together
end clip
George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
www.gtwassociates.com
301 421 4138
----- Original Message -----
From: "IETF Chair" <chair@xxxxxxxx>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IAB" <iab@xxxxxxx>; "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:19 AM
Subject: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found
here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf
An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called
for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes
that address those comments.
Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that
discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary
On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors
approved this version of the document. The approval process is
underway at the W3C as well.
The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the
next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the iab@xxxxxxx
and the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-08-24.
Thank you,
Russ Housley
IETF Chair