STAN DAR d S
Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research
ICT Policy Training Programme
Budapest, August 17-29
Dieter Zinnbauer
Outline
 What
are standards?
 Why are ICT standards so important?
 How do they affect public policy?
 Where does the action take place?
 What could be done?
► Tools:
a weird language, a raven, lots of cars
What is a standard?
 No
‘standard’ definition
 Suggestion:
“technical specification that is used
consistently as a rule, guideline or definition”
 Compliance:
explicit or tacit
 Standard types:
reference, minimum quality, compatibility
Why are standards important?
Understanding
Trust
and
Coordination
The role of standards in ICT
 Users
side
Weaving a network: horizontal standard
 Producer
side:
Building a system: vertical standard
 Persistence


through:
critical mass barriers
sunk investment (learning, development)
Internet and Standards
 Internet


as collection of standards
TCP/IP
FTP/HTTP/SMTP
 Network
 Design


of networks → Meta-standard
principles
Maximize interoperability, flexibility
Avoid fragmentation, overspecification
A definition of an Internet Standad
“In general, an Internet Standard is a
specification that is stable and wellunderstood, is technically competent, has
multiple, independent, and interoperable
implementations with substantial
operational experience, enjoys significant
public support, and is recognizably useful
in some or all parts of the Internet.”
(IETF, RFC 2026)
The Standard Message
 Standards
are essential
 Standards are ubiquitous
 Standards are hard to change
ICT Standards and Public Policy
Case example:
The Raven Discussion (1999)
 IETF working group on Voice over IP
 Wiretapping function to be built into
Internet standards?
 Discussion expanded to entire community:
the Raven list
 Rejected due to “significant and
unacceptable security risks”
ICT Standards and Public Policy
Thought experiment:
Designing a Language of Languages
You are a government concerned about
security. What rules do you built into a
language?
ICT Standards and Public Policy
Thought experiment:
Designing a Language of Languages
Government concerned about security:
 Do not whisper!
 Do not speak to loud!
 Do say your name and location!
 Do not change language without my approval!
ICT Standards and Public Policy
Thought experiment:
Designing A Language of Languages
You are a commercial entrepreneur, what
does your language look like?
ICT Standards and Public Policy
Thought experiment:
Designing A Language of Languages
Commercial entrepreneur:

Language for sale only
 Commercial breaks will be introduced
 Trademarked expressions are banned
 New words only introduced by vendor
The ICT ‘language’ reality

Do not whisper!
► The Raven debate

Do not speak too loud!
►Asymetric transmission standards (DOCSIS)

Do say your name!
►IPv6 and MAC addressing

Always say your location!
►location sensitive devices (e.g. cellular)

Do not change language without my approval
►Participation in standard making?
The ICT ‘language reality II

Language for sale only
► Proprietary or free standards?

Commercial breaks possible
►OPES (Open Pluggable Edge Services)

Trademarked expressions are banned
►ICANN / WIPO Domain Name Process

New words only introduced by vendor
►Open or closed standards?
Change is possible

Raven:

IPv6 / MAC addressing: made optional

DOCSIS: improved in second generation

Geoprivacy: IETF working group
under way
rejected
► All achieved through advocacy and users’ pressure
Public Interest Checklist for
Standards
 Content
 Design principles
 Process
Content
“If code is law than standards are the constitution”
Public values involved
 Privacy
(wiretapping, encryption, authentication)
 Freedom of Expression
(content intermediation, asymetric publishing)
 User control (digital rights mangement)
 …
Design principles

Co-ordination not uniformization
max. modularity, end-to-end
 Backwards compatibility
 Intellectual property practices
RAND: Reasonable and non-discriminatory
licensing
► Values
innovation, market access, user control,
investment protection…
Process practices
 Transparency
 Due
process
 Accountabiliy
 Participation
 Inclusiveness
Legitimacy
The shake-up of the standard
system I
Change factors





Liberalization
Convergence
Politicization (standards in national ICT
strategy)
Commercialization
Rapid innovation
The shake-up of the standard
system II
Change dynamics
→ Private
 National → International
 Post-development → Anticipatory
 Institutional overlaps and gaps
 Intergovernmental
Standard makers





Professional associations / trade associations
(early 1900)
Formal Standards Developing Organizations
(1930)
International Standards Organizations (1945)
Consortia (1990s)
Open source
A mixed bag for public interests
Dominant players in the standard’s process

Traditional:
telco monopolies: state interests:
formal process accountability,
oligopolistic markets

Early Internet:
tech community (libertarian interests?),
informal meritocracy, open markets

Maturing Internet: stakes rise: commercial interests,
state interests back in, standards qua
market dominance?
►
windows of opportunity but formidable
challenges
Taking action
Internet Engeneering Taskforce (IETF)
 *1986, from small community to central
forum
 Open process and participation: drafts
online, email discussion, anyone can
participate
 Current issues: Geprivacy, OPES
Taking action II
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
 *1994
 Membership association, fees to
participate
 Issues: semantic web, P3P
Advocacy Strategies

Technical competence
 Constructive participation and dialogue
 Time and resources (20% of full staff time)
 Different modes of engagement



Ongoing participation
Ad hoc represenation
Background monitoring
► Strategies:
pooling, twinning, awareness
raising, training
First point of call
Center for Democracy and Technology
“Standards, Technology, and Policy
Project”
http://www.cdt.org/standards/