Hi All,
I wanted to add Robin Cover's message to this thread for those who
may not have received it because it makes a number of important
points about the global IT standards situation. The author Robin
quotes adds a number of significant points about the decidedly
Un-Level Playing Field wrt IT standards and the cost of
participating. I wanted to add a couple of points to this discussion
with the global market in mind.
The developing world stands in a unique position in today's world,
especially right now in the midst of the global recession, which
finds the previously overvalued assets of the developed world losing
their value and in many cases becoming undervalued with the pendulum
swinging in the other direction. The developing world countries are
in the position where they could (not that they will) form their own
IT SDOs and promulgate their own standards (one hopes with the
benefit of the experience of SDOs like OASIS and the W3C, which have
an established, and non-mandated, tradition of developing open
(transparent), publicly-vetted, RF standards).
With assets in the developed world undervalued, the developing world
can establish and implement versions of IT standards that perform an
end-run around the cost of entering the previously established
standards-based market, and make it necessary for the developed world
to implement both sets of standards in order to compete in the
developing world. Of course, this is unlikely, but I wanted to voice
the possibility because it is no more unlikely than what is actually
happening in the global economy. Of course, putting an IT SDO
together among the developing world countries is no simple task and
without a clearly understood need, unlikely.
The point that OASIS should be interested in attracting telcos by
adopting RAND, is, I think, a flawed argument. If telcos want the
advantage of improved interoperability through standards, they will
do what it takes to achieve that because they have the economic
motivation. If they insist on RAND, that's their prerogative and, as
long as OASIS rules permit it, I think we'll just have to follow
their work closely to see where it goes.
I think the previous attempt to create an XML Semantic Mapping TC
under a RAND IPR would have constituted a genuine threat of royalty
claims to many domains, literally any domain that used a standard
mapping where an IPR claim applied, so I spoke against it. (I do
think a Semantic Mapping TC on either RF IPR mode would be a good
idea.)
However, this is different, more constrained to the telco domain and
focused on deriving requirements, so, while I view the precedent of a
RAND TC with concern, I think we're obliged to accept it under OASIS
rules.
Cheers,
Rex
At 6:01 AM -0600 11/20/08, Brenner, Michael Ralf \(Michael\) wrote:
>Hi Patrick,
>
>I don't know how one could imply that OASIS is deceiving some
>companies, by having TCs in OASIS TMS based on RAND. I think we
>would rather be deceiving them by trying to convince them that it
>does not matter that the IPR-mode is different than RAND.
>Ultimately, long-standing OASIS members have to decide whether they
>want to attract or not more participation from Telco operators and
>vendors as members. I think you will agree that such participation
>at the moment is very low. So the same long-standing OASIS members
>have to decide whether it is more important to stand behind the
>prevalent IPR policies in other OASIS TC (e.g. RF-based), or it is
>more important to find ways to entice such companies that prefer to
>work under RAND.
>
>I would defer the RAND vs. non-RAND debates in OASIS TC until more
>participation in OASIS is secured - otherwise you make it a gating
>factor that will dissuade many to join.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Michael
>
>
>From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:28 PM
>To: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14)
>Cc: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
>
>Abbie,
>Abbie Barbir wrote:
>> Patrick
>> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
>> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with allowing
>> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environment that they
>> are used to.
>>
>>
>RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
>Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing
>Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that
>they are used to" isn't marketing.
>Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order to
>get them to participate in OASIS.
>The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any
>meaningful way.
>If it were, that would have been your first response.
>So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is
>meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
>Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
>Hope you are having a great day!
>Patrick
>
> > Have a nice day
>> Regards
>> Abbie
>>
>>
>>