The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
CPOV : Wikipedia Research Initiative
https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/cpov
<b>The Second event, towards building the Critical Point of View Reader on Wikipedia, brings a range of scholars, practitioners, theorists and activists to critically reflect on the state of Wikipedia in our contemporary Information Societies. Organised in Amsterdam, Netherlands, by the Institute of Network Cultures, in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, the event builds on the debates and discussions initiated at the WikiWars that launched off the knowledge network in Bangalore in January 2010. Follow the Live Tweets at #CPOV</b>
<p>Second international conference of the <em>CPOV Wikipedia Research
Initiative</em> :: March 26-27, 2010 :: OBA (Public Library Amsterdam,
next to Amsterdam central station), Oosterdokskade 143, Amsterdam.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is at the brink of becoming the de facto global reference
of dynamic knowledge. The heated debates over its accuracy, anonymity,
trust, vandalism and expertise only seem to fuel further growth of
Wikipedia and its user base. Apart from leaving its modern counterparts
Britannica and Encarta in the dust, such scale and breadth places
Wikipedia on par with such historical milestones as Pliny the Elder’s
Naturalis Historia, the Ming Dynasty’s Wen-hsien ta- ch’ eng, and the
key work of French Enlightenment, the Encyclopedie. <span id="more-10604"></span>The multilingual Wikipedia as digital
collaborative and fluid knowledge production platform might be said to
be the most visible and successful example of the migration of FLOSS
(Free/ Libre/ Open Source Software) principles into mainstream culture.
However, such celebration should contain critical insights, informed by
the changing realities of the Internet at large and the Wikipedia
project in particular.</p>
<p>The CPOV Research Initiative was founded from the urge to stimulate
critical Wikipedia research: quantitative and qualitative research that
could benefit both the wide user-base and the active Wikipedia community
itself. On top of this, Wikipedia offers critical insights into the
contemporary status of knowledge, its organizing principles, function,
and impact; its production styles, mechanisms for conflict resolution
and power (re-)constitution. The overarching research agenda is at once a
philosophical, epistemological and theoretical investigation of
knowledge artifacts, cultural production and social relations, and an
empirical investigation of the specific phenomenon of the Wikipedia.</p>
<p>Conference Themes: Wiki Theory, Encyclopedia Histories, Wiki Art,
Wikipedia Analytics, Designing Debate and Global Issues and Outlooks.</p>
<p>Follow the live tweets on http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23CPOV</p>
<p>Confirmed speakers: Florian Cramer (DE/NL), Andrew Famiglietti (UK),
Stuart Geiger (USA), Hendrik-Jan Grievink (NL), Charles van den Heuvel
(NL), Jeanette Hofmann (DE), Athina Karatzogianni (UK), Scott Kildall
(USA), Patrick Lichty (USA), Hans Varghese Mathews (IN), Teemu Mikkonen
(FI), Mayo Fuster Morell (IT), Mathieu O’Neil (AU), Felipe Ortega (ES),
Dan O’Sullivan (UK), Joseph Reagle (USA), Ramón Reichert (AU), Richard
Rogers (USA/NL), Alan Shapiro (USA/DE), Maja van der Velden (NL/NO),
Gérard Wormser (FR).</p>
<p>Editorial team: Sabine Niederer and Geert Lovink (Amsterdam), Nishant
Shah and Sunil Abraham (Bangalore), Johanna Niesyto (Siegen), Nathaniel
Tkacz (Melbourne). Project manager CPOV Amsterdam: Margreet Riphagen.
Research intern: Juliana Brunello. Production intern: Serena Westra.</p>
<p>The CPOV conference in Amsterdam will be the second conference of the
CPOV Wikipedia Research Initiative. The launch of the initiative took
place in Bangalore India, with the conference WikiWars in January 2010.
After the first two events, the CPOV organization will work on
producing a reader, to be launched early 2011. For more information or
submitting a <a href="http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/reader">reader</a>
contribution.</p>
<p>Buy your ticket <a href="http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/practical-info/tickets/">online</a>
(with iDeal), or register by sending an email to: info (at)
networkcultures.org. One day ticket: €25, students and OBA members:
€12,50. Full conference pass (2 days): €40, students and OBA members:
25.</p>
<p>Organized by the Institute of Network Cultures Amsterdam, in
cooperation with the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore,
India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/cpov'>https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/cpov</a>
</p>
No publishernishantConferenceOpen StandardsDigital ActivismDigital GovernanceDigital AccessPublic AccountabilityResearchFeatured2011-08-23T02:52:25ZBlog EntryArguments Against Software Patents in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents
<b>CIS believes that software patents are harmful for the software industry and for consumers. In this post, Pranesh Prakash looks at the philosophical, legal and practical reasons for holding such a position in India. This is a slightly modified version of a presentation made by Pranesh Prakash at the iTechLaw conference in Bangalore on February 5, 2010, as part of a panel discussing software patents in India, the United States, and the European Union.</b>
<p>This blog post is based on a presentation made at the <a href="http://www.itechlaw-india.com/">iTechLaw conference</a> held on February 5, 2010. The audience consisted of lawyers from various corporations and corporate law firms. As is their wont, most lawyers when dealing with software patents get straight to an analysis of law governing the patenting of computer programmes in India and elsewhere, and seeing whether any loopholes exist and can be exploited to patent software. It was refreshing to see at least some lawyers actually going into questions of the need for patents to cover computer programs. In my presentation, I made a multi-pronged case against software patents: (1) philosophical justification against software patents based on the nature of software; (2) legal case against software patents; (3) practical reasons against software patents.</p>
<h2>Preamble</h2>
<p>Through these arguments, it is sought to be shown that patentability of software is not some arcane, technical question of law, but is a real issue that affect the continued production of new software and the everyday life of the coder/hacker/software programmer/engineer as well as consumers of software (which is, I may remind you, everywhere from your pacemaker to your phone). A preamble to the arguments would note that the main question to ask is: <strong>why should we allow for patenting of software</strong>? Answering this question will lead us to ask: <strong>who benefits from patenting of software</strong>. The conclusion that I come to is that patenting of software helps three categories of people: (1) those large software corporations that already have a large number of software patents; (2) those corporations that do not create software, but only trade in patents / sue on the basis of patents ("patent trolls"); (3) patent lawyers. How they don't help small and medium enterprises nor society at large (since they deter, rather than further invention) will be borne out by the rest of these arguments, especially the section on practical reasons against software patents.</p>
<h2>What are Patents?</h2>
<p>Patents are a twenty-year monopoly granted by the State on any invention. An invention has to have at least four characteristics: (0) patentable subject matter; (1) novelty (it has to be new); (2) inventive step / non-obviousness (even if new, it should not be obvious); (3) application to industry. A monopoly over that invention, thus means that if person X has invented something, then I may not use the core parts of that invention ("the essential claims") in my own invention. This prohibition applies even if I have come upon my invention without having known about X's invention. (Thus, independent creation is not a defence to patent infringement. This distinguishes it, for instance, from copyright law in which two people who created the same work independently of each other can both assert copyright.) Patents cover non-abstract ideas/functionality while copyright covers specific expressions of ideas. To clarify: imagine I make a drawing of a particular machine and describe the procedure of making it. Under patent law, no one else can make that particular machine, while under copyright law, no one can copy that drawing.</p>
<h2>Philosophical Justification Against Software Patents</h2>
<p>Even without going into the case against patents <em>per se</em> (lack of independent creation as a defence; lack of 'harm' as a criterion leading to internalization of all positive externalities; lack of effective disclosure and publication; etc.), which has been done much more ably by others like <a href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/">Bessen & Meurer</a> (especially in their book <a href="http://researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/">Patent Failure</a>) and <a href="http://www.againstmonopoly.org/">Boldrin & Levine</a> (in their book <a href="http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm">Against Intellectual Monopoly</a>, the full text of which is available online).</p>
<p>But there is one essentially philosophical argument against software as subject matter of a patent. Software/computer programs ("instructions for a computer"), as any software engineer would tell you, are merely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm">algorithms</a> ("an effective method for solving a problem using a finite sequence of instructions") that are meant to be understood by a computer or a human who knows how to read that code.</p>
<p>Algorithms are not patentable subject matter, as they are mere expressions of abstract ideas, and not inventions in themselves. Computer programs, similarly, are abstract ideas. They only stop being abstract ideas when embodied in a machine or a process in which it is the machine/process that is the essential claim and not the software. That machine or process being patented would not grant protection to the software itself, but to the whole machine or process. Thus the abstract part of that machine/process (i.e., the computer program) could be used in any other machine/process, as it it is not the subject matter of the patent. Importantly, just because software is required to operate some machine would then not mean that the machine itself is not patentable, just that the software cannot be patented in guise of patenting a machine.</p>
<h2>Legal Case Against Software Patents</h2>
<p>In India, section 3(k) of the Patent Act reads:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>(3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act: (k) a mathematical or business method or computer programme (<em>sic</em>) <em>per se</em> or algorithms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As one can see, computer programs are place in the same category as "mathematical methods", "algorithms", and "business methods", hence giving legal validity to the idea propounded in the previous section that computer programs are a kind of algorithms (just as algorithms are a kind of mathematical method).</p>
<p>Be that as it may, the best legal minds in India have had to work hard at understanding what exactly "computer programme <em>per se</em>" means. They have cited U.S. case law, U.K. case law, E.U. precedents, and sought to arrive at an understanding of how <em>per se</em> should be understood. While understanding what <em>per se</em> means might be a difficult job, it is much easier to see what it does <em>not</em> mean. For that, we can look at the 2004 Patent Ordinance that Parliament rejected in 2005. In that ordinance, sections 3(k) and (ka) read as follows:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>(3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act: (k) a computer programme <em>per se</em> other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; (ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thus, it is clear that the interpretation that "computer programme <em>per se</em>" excludes "a computer programme that has technical application to industry" and "a computer programme in combination with hardware" is wrong. By rejecting the 2004 Ordinance wording, Parliament has clearly shown that "technical application to industry" and "combination with hardware" do not make a computer programme patentable subject matter.</p>
<p>Indeed, what exactly is "technical application to industry"? <a href="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=technical">"Technical"</a> has various definitions, and a perusal through those definitions would show that barely any computer program can be said not to relate to a technique, not involve "specialized knowledge of applied arts and sciences" (it is code, after all; not everyone can write good algorithms), or not relate to "a practical subject that is organized according to scientific principles" or is "technological". Similarly, all software is, <a href="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=software">by definition</a>, meant to be used in combination with hardware. Thus, it being used in combination with hardware must not, as argued above, give rise to patentability of otherwise unpatentable subject matter category.</p>
<p>In 2008, the Patent Office published a new 'Draft Manual Of Patent Practice And Procedure' in which it sought to allow patenting of certain method claims for software inventions (while earlier the Patent Office objected to method claims, allowing only device claims with hardware components). This Draft Manual was withdrawn from circulation, with Shri N.N. Prasad (then Joint Secretary of DIPP, the department administering the Patent Office) noting that the parts of the Manual on sections 3(d) and 3(k) had generated a lot of controversy, and were <em>ultra vires</em> the scope of the Manual (which could not override the Patent Act). He promised that those parts would be dropped and the Manual would be re-written. A revised draft of the Manual has not yet been released. Thus the interpretation provided in the Draft Manual (which was based heavily on the interpretation of the U.K. courts) cannot not be relied upon as a basis for arguments in favour of the patentability of software in India.</p>
<p>In October 2008, CIS helped organize a <a href="https://cis-india.org/advocacy/openness/blog/the-national-public-meeting-on-software-patents">National Public Meeting on Software Patents</a> in which Indian academics, industry, scientists, and FOSS enthusiasts all came to the conclusion that software patents are harmful for <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/software-patents/software-patenting-will-harm-industry-consumer">both the industry as well as consumers</a>.</p>
<h2>Practical Reasons Against Software Patents</h2>
<p>This is going to be an attempt at distilling and simplifying some of the main practical arguments against patenting of software.</p>
<p>There are traditionally <a href="http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2005/04/patent_economics_part_4_incent.html">four incentives that the patent system caters to</a>: (1) incentive to invent; (2) incentive to disclose; (3) incentive to commercialize; and (4) incentive to invent substitutes. Apart from the last, patenting of software does not really aid any of them.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<h3>Patent Landmines / Submarine Patents / Patent Gridlocks / No Exception for Independent Creation</h3>
<p>Given that computer programs are algorithms, having monopolies over such abstract ideas is detrimental to innovation. Just the metaphors say a lot about software patents: landmines (they cannot be seen/predicted); submarines (they surface out of the blue); gridlocks (because there are so many software patents around the same area of computing, they prevent further innovation in that area, since no program can be written without violating one patent or the other).</p>
<p>Imagine the madness that would have ensued had patents been granted when computer programming was in its infancy. Imagine different methods of sorting (quick sort, bubble sort) that are part of Computer Science 101 had been patented. While those particular instances aren't, similar algorithms, such as data compression algorithms (including the infamous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZW">LZW compression method</a>), have been granted patents. Most importantly, even if one codes certain functionality into software independently of the patent holder, that is still violative of the patent. Computer programs being granted patents makes it extremely difficult to create other computer programs that are based on the same abstract ideas. Thus incentives # (1) and (3) are not fulfilled, and indeed, they are harmed. There is no incentive to invent, as one would always be violating one patent or the other. Given that, there is no incentive to commercialize what one has invented, because of fear of patent infringement suits.</p>
<p>An apt illustration of this is the current difficulty of choosing a royalty-free video format for HTML 5, as it shows, in practical terms, how difficult it is to create a video format without violating one patent or the other. While the PNG image format was created to side-step the patent over the LZW compression method used in the GIF image format, bringing Ogg Theora or Dirac (both patent-free video format) to surpass the levels of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC or VC-1 will be very difficult without infringing dozens if not hundreds of software patents. Chris DiBona of Google, while talking about <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg15476.html">improving Ogg Theora</a> as part of its inclusion in HTML 5 specifications said, "Here’s the challenge: Can Theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?" Just <a href="http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:jRnXmHcZCMsJ:www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%2520LA%2520News%2520List/Attachments/140/n_03-11-17_avc.html+http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_03-11-17_avc.html&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in">the number of companies and organization that hold patents over H.264</a> is astounding, and includes: Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea (ETRI), France Télécom, Fujitsu, LG Electronics, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Robert Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan (JVC). As is the amount of royalties to be paid ("[t]he maximum royalty for these rights payable by an Enterprise (company and greater than 50% owned subsidiaries) is $3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per year in 2009-10"; with royalty per unit of a decoder-encoder costing upto USD 0.20.)</p>
<p>Indeed, even the most diligent companies cannot guard themselves against software patents. FFII estimates that a very simple online shopping website <a href="http://webshop.ffii.org">would violate twenty different patents at the very least</a>. Microsoft recently lost a case against i4i when i4i surfaced with a patent covering custom XML as implemented in MS Office 2003 and MS Office 2007. As a result Microsoft had to ship patches to its millions of customers, to disable the functionality and bypass that patent. The manufacturers of BlackBerry, the Canadian company Research in Motion, had to shell out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP,_Inc.#RIM_patent_infringement_litigation">USD 617 million as settlement</a> to NTP over wireless push e-mail, as it was otherwise faced with the possibility of the court shutting down the BlackBerry service in the U.S. This happened despite there being a well-known method of doing so pre-dating the NTP patents. NTP has also filed cases against AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, and Palm Inc. <a href="http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/12/15/rimntp_mud_splashes_microsoft.php">Microsoft was also hit by Visto Corporation</a> over those same NTP patents, which had been licensed to Visto (a startup).</p>
<ul><li>
<h4>Don't These Cases Show How Software Patents Help Small Companies?</h4>
<p>The astute reader might be tempted to ask: are not all of these examples of small companies getting their dues from larger companies? Doesn't all of this show that software patents actually help small and medium enterprises (SMEs)? The answer to that is: no. To see why, we need to note the common thread binding i4i, NTP, and Visto. None of them were, at the time of their lawsuits, actually creating new software, and NTP was an out-and-out "non-practising entity"/"patent holding company" AKA, patent troll. i4i was in the process of closing shop, and Visto had just started up. None of these were actually practising the patent. None of these were producing any other software. Thus, none of these companies had anything to lose by going after big companies. In other words, the likes of Microsoft, RIM, Verizon, AT&T, etc., could not file counter-suits of patent infringement, which is normally what happens when SMEs try to assert patent rights against larger corporations. For every patent that the large corporation violates of the smaller corporation, the smaler corporation would be violating at least ten of the larger corporation's. Software patents are more helpful for software companies as a tool for cross-licensing rather than as a way of earning royalties. Even this does not work as a strategy against patent trolls.</p>
</li></ul>
<p>Thus, the assertion that was made at the beginning is borne out: software patents help only patent trolls, large corporations that already have large software patent portfolios, and the lawyers who draft these patents and later argue them out in court.</p>
</li><li>
<h3>Term of Patents</h3>
<p>Twenty years of monopoly rights is outright ludicrous in an industry where the rate of turnover of technology is much faster -- anywhere between two years and five months.</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3>Software Industry Progressed Greatly Without Patents</h3>
<p>In India, software patents have never been asserted in courts (even though many have been <a href="https://cis-india.org/advocacy/openness/blog/the-national-public-meeting-on-software-patents">illegally granted</a>), yet the software industry in India is growing in leaps and bounds. Similarly, most of the big (American) giants of the software industry today grew to their stature by using copyright to "protect" their software, and not patents.</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3>Copyright Exists for Software</h3>
<p>As noted above, the code/expression of any software is internationally protected by copyright law. There is no reason to protect the ideas/functionality of that software as well.</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3>Insufficient Disclosure</h3>
<p>When ordinary computer programmers cannot understand what a particular software patent covers (which is the overwhelming case), then the patent is of no use. One of the main incentives of the patent system is to encourage gifted inventors to share their genius with the world. It is not about gifted inventors paying equally gifted lawyers to obfuscate their inventions into gobbledygook so that other gifted inventors can at best hazard a guess as to precisely what is and is not covered by that patent. Thus, this incentive (#2) is not fulfilled by the current system of patents either -- not unless there is a major overhaul of the system. This ties in with the impossibility of ensuring that one is not violating a software patent. If a reasonably smart software developer (who are often working as individuals, and as part of SMEs) cannot quickly ascertain whether one is violating patents, then there is a huge disincentive against developing software in that area at all.</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3>Software Patents Work Against Free/Libre/Open Source Software</h3>
<p>Software patents hinder the development of software and FOSS licences, as the licensee is not allowed to restrict the rights of the sub-licensees over and above the restrictions that the licensee has to observe. Thus, all patent clearances obtained by the licensee must be passed on to the sub-licensees. Thus, patented software, though most countries around the world do not recognize them, are generally not included in the default builds of many FOSS operating systems. This inhabits the general adoption of FOSS, since many of the software patents, even though not enforceable in India, are paid heed to by the software that Indians download, and the MP3 and DivX formats are not enabled by default in standard installations of a Linux OS such as Ubuntu.</p>
</li></ol>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Currently, the U.S. patent system is being reviewed at the administrative level, the legislative level, as well as the judicial level. At the judicial level, the question of business method patents (and, by extension, software patents) is before the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos"><em>Bilski v. Kappos</em></a>. Judge Mayer of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC, which heard <em>In re Bilksi</em>) noted that "the patent system has run amok". The Free Software Foundation submitted a most extensive <a href="http://endsoftpatents.org/amicus-bilski-2009"><em>amicus curiae</em> brief</a> to the U.S. Supreme Court, filled with brilliant analysis of software patents and arguments against the patentability of software that is well worth a read.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsAccess to KnowledgeSoftware PatentsIntellectual Property RightsPublicationsPatents2012-03-13T10:43:12ZBlog EntryOpenness, Videos, Impressions
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OVSreport
<b>The one day Open Video Summit organised by the Centre for Internet & Society, iCommons, Open Video Alliance, and Magic Lantern, to bring together a range of stakeholders to discuss the possibilities, potentials, mechanics and politics of Open Video. Nishant Shah, who participated in the conversations, was invited to summarise the impressions and ideas that ensued in the day.</b>
<p></p>
<p>The notion of free and open is under great debate even under
that, and I think even when you side with a camp, there are going to be further
splinters. There are many ways of defining the free and open, and I think that the
tension, rather than being resolved, needs to be sustained and creatively
perpetrated to keep an internal checks and balances on not getting carried away
with it. All the groups did indeed circle around this in different,
often tangential ways – that there is need to define, variously and almost
endlessly, in defining the context of the free that we are dealing with.</p>
<p>Open video, in that matter, has gone through different
iterations, and I think it is nice that different stakeholders have defined it
variously, and also looked at the problems that it might lead to. However, for
the sake of synthesis, I am going to let you have your own idea of free and
open but instead look at five key words which have emerged, in my selective
hearing, through the day: <strong>Access, Archive,
Share, Remix, Repurpose</strong>. And it is these five that we need to now
imbricate these concepts across different thematic that emerged in the groups
today.</p>
<p><strong>Access</strong> has been one primary question that almost everybody
dealt with; Access has its legacies in the Open and Free culture movements,
where technological access, dealing with questions of open standards and
content, of bandwidth and infrastructure. More interestingly, in an emerging
information society like India, there are other concerns of language, access,
privilege, bandwidth, education etc. To
contextualise access and to put it into different perspectives is something
that different participants have voiced the need for.</p>
<p><strong>Archive</strong> is a preoccupation with most people because
archiving has close relationships with knowledge and subsequently retrieval and
usage. If knowledge is being digitised so that it is made accessible to
different people, there are older questions of representation, voice,
empowerment, participation, ethics, privacy, ownership etc. Crop up. In
education archiving has to do with the curricula building and knowledge
production. In networking, collaboration and film making, it is the kind of
issues that pad.ma is trying to tackle with. It also leads to notions of
access, distribution etc.</p>
<p><strong>Sharing </strong>is what is almost defining the spirit of the Open
and Free culture movements. There is a need to understand and explore what
sharing means. When does it infringe laws and what kind of regulation needs to
be advocated so that sharing becomes possible. How does one overcome questions
of piracy, stealing, IPR etc? More interestingly, what do we share and who do
we share it with? Tools by which sharing
leads to innovation? How does it lead to new participation and learning
practices and pedagogies? What kind of open distribution models and networks
can be built up?</p>
<p><strong>Remix</strong> has been of great value because it means that you are
being converted into some sort of a stakeholder or a contributor to the
process. Networking and nodes, network-actor, collaborator , peer 2 peer – the
possibility of looking at questions of internet and digital traces is
interesting. Or imagine that the act of sharing is also a remix. Sometimes just
putting it into new contexts, making it available to newer constituencies, etc.
can also be looked upon as remixing. Remix as a knowledge production aesthetic
and mechanics seems to have emerged.</p>
<p><strong>Repurpose </strong>is my additional reading of something that perhaps
needs no mention to this group, but nonetheless needs flagging. The fact
remains, that the technology is not a solution in itself. It is a tool that
enables the solutions which one is seeking for. The processes, paradigms,
protocols and practices are indeed shaped and mediated by technologies and
there are new solution possibilities which are produced. However, there still
seem to be anxieties, concerns, questions and problems which are cropping up
and need to be addressed outside of technology but within technology ecologies.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OVSreport'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/OVSreport</a>
</p>
No publishernishantConferenceOpen StandardsArtWorkshopDigital AccessFLOSSOpen ContentArchivesOpennessOpen InnovationMeetingOpen Access2011-09-22T12:23:13ZBlog EntryOpen Standards Workshop at IGF '09
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society co-organized a workshop on 'Open Standards: A Rights-Based Framework' at the fourth Internet Governance Forum, at Sharm el-Sheikh. The panel was chaired by Aslam Raffee of Sun Microsystems and the panellists were Sir Tim Berners-Lee of W3C, Renu Budhiraja of India's DIT, Sunil Abraham of CIS, Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft, and Rishab Ghosh of UNU-MERIT.</b>
<p>Sir Tim Berners-Lee started the session with an address on various rights. Rights, he noted can range from being things like the rights to air and water to the right not to have the data carrier you use determine which movie you watch. Then, there are tensions between rights: the right to anonymity can clash with the right to know who posted information on making a bomb. Berners-Lee stated that for 2009, he has chosen to pursue one particular right: the right to government-held data. This data can include everything from where schools are to emergency services such as locations of hospitals. Today, we are talking about standards. </p>
<p>The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a fifteen-year old body in which all kinds of people come together for purposes of setting standards around the World Wide Web. Thus, everything from HTML, which is used to write Web pages to WCAG, which are guidelines to enable people with disabilities access websites through assistive technologies. W3C conducts its discussions openly: anybody who has a good idea has a right to participate in its discussions -- it does not matter who one works for, who one represents -- what does matter are the ideas one brings to the table. The kinds of standards that W3C deals with are of interest to an immensely wide-ranging group of people. Even ten-year olds have actually expressed their opinions about standards like HTML. All this openness of participation must be guaranteed while ensuring that the processes move forward.</p>
<p>Next spoke Renu Budhiraja of the Department of Information and Technology, which is a part of the Indian government. She started off by hoping that this workshop would be not only a platform to share knowledge, but also to reach consensus on a few matters. Next, she laid out why open standards are extremely important for the Indian government. What citizens want in their interactions with the government are ease of interaction and efficiency. For them it is immaterial whether a certain service is provided by Department A or Department B. Thus we need to move towards a single-window government service for citizens, enabling them to interact easily with the government's various departments. While such an initiative must be centralized for it to be effective, it is crucial that its implementation be decentralized and suited to each district or localities' needs.</p>
<p>There is, understandably, a huge institutional mechanism behind ensuring that these systems are based on open standards. We have expert committees, consisting of academics and knowledgeable bureaucrats, and working groups, which include industry groups. Through these, we have evolved a National Policy on Open Standards, which is currently in a draft stage, but shall be notified soon. This policy outlines the principles based on which particular standards required for governmental functioning are to be chosen or evolved. This document will ensure long-term accessibility to public documents and information, and seamless interoperability of various governmental services and departments. It will also reduce the risk of vendor lock-in and reduce costs, and thus ensure long-term, sustainable, scalable and cost-effective solutions.</p>
<p>Ms. Budhiraja noted that there are a few aspects of the policy that bear discussion in a forum such as the IGF. First is the issue of whether royalty-free is the only choice for innovation. All other things equal, between royalty-free and reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) standards, of course royalty-free is to be preferred. But what if a superior technology (JPEG200 vs. JPEG) is RAND? What should the government's position be in such a case? Further, what should the government's position be when in a particular domain a RAND standard is the only option? </p>
<p>Next is the issue of single vs. multiple open standards. When interoperability is what we are aiming at, can multiple standards be recommended as some in the industry are asking us to do? And then is the issue of market maturity. The government sometimes finds itself in a situation where a standard is available, but well-developed products around that standard aren't and there aren't sufficient vendors using that standard. All these issues are of great practical importance when a government works on a policy document on standards.</p>
<p>Next up was Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society. His presentation was on open standards as citizens' and consumers' rights. He started off by citing the example of the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Application (SCOSTA) standard, and the implications that the SCOSTA story has on large-scale projects such as the National Unique ID project currently under way in India. SCOSTA, an open standard, was being written off as unimplementable by all the MNC smart card vendors who wished to push RAND standards. IIT Kanpur helped the government develop a working implementation. Within twenty days, the card manufacturers submitted modified cards for compliance testing by NIC. Because of SCOSTA being an open standard, local companies also joined the tender. The cost went down from Rs. 600 per card to Rs. 30 per card. This shows the benefits of open standards as a means of curbing oligopolistic pricing, and working for the benefit of consumers.</p>
<p>From a rights-based perspective, access to the state machinery is a primary right. Citizens should not be required to pirate or purchase software to interact with the state. If e-governance solutions are based on proprietary standards, not all citizens would be equal. The South African example or requiring a particular browser to access the election commission's website shows that in a rather drastic fashion. When intellectual property interferes with governmental needs, governments have not been shy of issuing compulsory licences. This was seen when during the Great War the United States government pooled various flight-related patents and compulsorily licensed them, as well as what we are currently seeing with many Aids-related drugs being compulsorily licensed in developing countries. Thus, there are precedents for such licensing, and governments should explore them in the realm of e-governance. Many countries now have statutes that guarantee the right to government-held information. Government Interoperability Frameworks should take these into account, and mandate all government-to-citizen (G2C) information be transacted via open standards. This must be backed up by a strong accessibility policy to ensure that the governments don't discriminate between their citizens.</p>
<p>Proprietary standards act like pseudo-intellectual property rights, just as DRMs do. They add a layer on top of rights such as copyright, and can prevent the exercise of fair use and fair dealing rights because of an inability to legally negotiate the standards in which the content is encoded in a cost-free manner. In guaranteeing this balance between copyrights and fair dealing rights, free software and alternative IP models play a crucial role. Because of software patents being recognized in a few countries, development of free software which allows citizens to exercise their fair use rights is harmed in all countries.</p>
<p>Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft spoke next and placed the standards debate in a large context. He noted that standards are a technicality that are only a small part of the large issue which is interoperability in e-governance and delivery to citizens. The real challenges are organizational and semantic interoperability. Frequently interoperability is not harmed by technical issues, but by legal and organizational issues. Governments used to work on paper; during the shift to electronic data, they didn't engage in any organizational changes. Thus they continue to function with electronic data the same way that they did with paper-based data. Governments often lack strong privacy policies regarding the data that each of their departments holds. This harms governmental functioning. Additionally, legacy hardware and software have to be catered to by the standards we are talking about: sometimes an open standard just will not work. </p>
<p>Standards don't guarantee interoperability, and there is significant work done on this by noted academics ("Why Standards Are Not Enough To Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability" Lewis et al.; "Difficulties Implementing Standards" Egyedi & Dahanayake; "Standards Compliant, But Incompatible?" Egyedi et al.). Mandated standards lists will not help address interoperability issues between different implementations of the same standard. What would help? Transparency of implementations; collaboration with community; active participation in maintenance of standards, etc., would help. There is a need for continued public sector reform, with a focus on citizen-centric e-governance, and a need to engage with the question of whether government-mandated standards lists lead the market or follow the market.</p>
<p>Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, a senior researcher at UN University, Maastricht, spoke next. He started by noting that technical standards are left to technical experts. That needs to change, which is why discussing open standards at the IGF is important. He next set off a hypothetical: imagine you go to the city council office in Sharm el Sheik, and at the parking lot there it says that your car has to be a Ford if you are to park there; or if the Dutch government insists that you have a Philips TV if you are to receive the national broadcaster's signal. While these might seem absurd, situations like this arise all the time when it comes to the realm of software. Thus, the social effects of open standards are of utmost importance, and not just their technical qualities. Analysing the social effects of open standards takes us back to the economics of technology and technological standards. Technological standards exhibit network externalities: their inherent value is less than the value of others using them. Being the only person in the world with a telephone won't be very useful. Technological standards also exhibit path dependence: once you go with one technological format, it is difficult to change over to another even if that other format is superior to the first. Thus, clearly, standards benefit when there is a 'natural monopoly'. The challenge really arises when faced with the question of how to ensure a monopoly in a technology without the supplier of that technology exhibiting monopolistic tendencies. This can only be done when the technology is open and developed openly, of which the web standards and the W3C are excellent examples. If the technology or the process are semi-open, then because of the few intellectual property rights attached to the technology, some would be better off than others. Just as governments cannot insist on driving a particular make of cars as a prerequisite for access to them, they cannot insist on using a particular proprietary standard as a means of accessing them.</p>
<p>Many interesting questions arose when the floor was thrown open to the audience. "Should governments only mandate a particular standard when it is certain that market maturity exists?" Not really, since governmental decisions also give signals to the market and help direct attention to those standards. It would be best if roadmaps were provided, with particular under-mature standards being designated as "preferred standards", thus helping push industry in a particular direction. Examples where this strategy has borne fruit abound. This is also the strategy found in the Australian GIF. On the issue of multiplicity of standards, Sir Tim was very clear that they have to be avoided at all costs. He gave the example of XSLT and CSS, which are both stylesheet formats. He noted that their domain of operation was very different (with one being for servers and the other for clients), so having two standards with similar functions but different domains of operation does not make them multiple standards. Multiple standards defeat the purpose of the standardization process.</p>
<p>It was noted that governmental choices are of practical importance to citizens. During the Hurricane Katrina emergency, the federal emergency website only worked properly if Internet Explorer was used. How do we move forward? We must move forward by having policies that strike a balance between allowing for the natural evolution of standards and stability. The Government Interoperability Frameworks must be dynamic documents, allowing for categorization between standards and having clear roadmaps to enable industry to provide solutions to the government in a timely fashion. Governments must be strong in order to push industry towards openness, for the sake of its citizens, and not let industry dictate proprietary standards as the solution. Some opined that since there are dozens of domains that governments function in, maintaining lists of standards is a time-consuming process that is not justified, but others rebutted that by noting that for enterprise architectures to work, governments have to maintain such lists internally. Opening up that list to citizens and service providers would not entail greater overheads.</p>
<p><strong>Sunil Abraham talking Open Standards at IGF09</strong></p>
<p>(Video added on December 30, 2009)<br /><br /><br /><a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
</a></p>
<div style="float: none; text-align: start;" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__1"><a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
<div class="__noscriptPlaceholder__2"> </div>
</a></div>
<a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
</a>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsConsumer RightsDigital GovernanceFair DealingsFLOSSWorkshopOpenness2011-08-23T02:54:03ZBlog EntrySecond Response to Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response
<b>Another draft (labelled "version 2", dated May 26, 2009) of the draft national policy on open standards for e-governance was made available to Fosscomm, while many software companies were speaking out against NASSCOM's position on the policy. CIS drafted a second response addressing both the allegations against NASSCOM as well as the few shortcomings we perceive in the draft policy.</b>
<p>To<br />Shri Shankar Aggrawal<br />Joint Secretary (e-Governance)<br />Department of Information Technology<br />Ministry of Communications and Information Technology</p>
<p>Tuesday, July 7, 2009</p>
<p>Dear Sir,</p>
<h3>Sub: Comments on Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance (version 2)</h3>
<p>I am writing on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, which is a Bangalore-based civil society organization involved both in research and policy advocacy. Public accountability and digital pluralism are two of our core concerns, and it is for this that we are writing to you today. As a natural corollary of our mission, we aim at representing the concerns of citizens and consumers. You would recall that we had submitted comments to the call for comments you had put out for the draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance last year (archived at <http://cis-india.org/advocacy/os/iosp/the-response/>). </p>
<p>We have recently received what appears to be a newer draft (version 2) of the National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance, dated May 26, 2009. We are yet again very pleased to note the progressive nature of this document and wish to congratulate the government on its decision to promote the interests of the citizens of India over the narrow partisan interests of a few companies which wish to promote proprietary standards.</p>
<p>It has brought to our notice by some in the software industry that the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) has argued for the dilution of the definition of open standards by including standards licensed under “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms to be considered “open”, and has also called for multiple standards in the same domain to be considered valid as a rule under the policy. We believe both these demands go against the interest of consumers of standards — which in this case is the Indian government — and are thus against the interest of citizens as well, since the Indian government handles data on behalf of its citizens.</p>
<p>Even “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms of licensing of standards are in fact discriminatory as they prevent the development of free/libre/open source software based on those standards. And while having multiple implementations of a standard is beneficial as it increases consumer (i.e., governmental) choice, having multiple incompatible standards is detrimental to the government's interest as the policy itself recognizes in paragraph 4.2, and the very purpose (as enumerated in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4) of having standards is defeated. Even if the multiple standards are bi-directionally interoperable, additional costs are incurred in having concurrent multiple standards.</p>
<p>Thus, one hopes that the the threshold of “national interest” mentioned in paragraph 6.4.1 is set to a high level. Lastly, the views put forth by NASSCOM seem not to be truly legitimate as it has been the complaint of some that NASSCOM did not hold an open consultation with its own members before formulating its views. There are software giants, including IBM, Sun, and Red Hat, that have openly criticized the NASSCOMM position on open standards. More importantly, NASSCOM's position does not concur with what we believe is in the best interest of small and medium software enterprises, which constitute the bulk of the Indian software industry. We pray that you shall keep this in mind while considering NASSCOM's views.</p>
<p>We believe that apart from the technical reasons to favour open standards, there are many public interest reasons as well. We believe that the adoption of open standards is a step towards the promotion of equitable access to knowledge to all the people of our country. We further believe that public accountability will be served greatly by adoption of an open standards policy by the Central and State governments. While even developed countries (such as those of the EU) are mandating open standards in all governmental departments, processes, and interactions, it is developing countries that stand to gain most from open standards. Proprietary standards place a larger burden on developing economies than developed as developing economies have a greater need to participate in the global network by using standards, but do have lesser capabilities than developed economies in terms of paying for royalties.</p>
<p>On the document itself, while there are many reasons to hail it, we believe there are still a few shortcomings which we wish to bring to your notice.</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 1: Possibility of following letter of policy while violating its spirit</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process by exerting undue influence on the members of the standard setting body. That such undue influence have been sought to be applied even in India recently shows that this is not mere conjecture or idle speculation. Given this background, the document should note this as a problem and note that remedial measures could be undertaken in the event such undue influence comes to light.</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />Introduce language, such as that used in the EU EIF, stating:<br />“Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process.”</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 2: Patenting and licensing of government-developed standards</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />Paragraph 6.3 of the draft policy allows the government to opt for the development of a new standard by a Government of India-identified agency in case no standard is found to meet the government's functional requirements. However, it is not clear under what terms this standard will be available.</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />Introduce a paragraph 6.3.1 stating:<br />“Any standard developed by or on behalf of the government shall be patent-free and the specifications of such a standard will be published online and will be available to all for no cost. Along with the standard, the government shall also provide, or shall cause to be provided, a free/libre/open source reference implementation of that standard.”</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 3: No framework provided for review or phasing out interim standards</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />Paragraph 6.2 permits the government to adopt a non-open “interim” standard (one which does not fulfil all the mandatory requirements of open standards as laid out in 5.1) if no open standard exists in the specific domain for which the standard is required. This however does not have a clause necessitating the phasing out of such an interim standard.</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />A review mechanism should be provided for periodic evaluation of all standards selected by the government, especially those designated as interim standards. A new paragraph 7.1.1 could be added:<br />“All standards selected through the processes outlined in this policy shall undergo an annual review by the Apex Body on e-Governance Standards, and all those designated as interim standards shall be reviewed biannually.”</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Issue 4: Problematic definition in the glossary</h3>
<p><strong>Explanation</strong><br />In Appendix A, the definition of “patents” (A.12) states: “The additional qualification 'utility patents' is used in countries such as the United States to distinguish them from other types of patents but should not be confused with utility models granted by other countries. Examples of particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents and software patents.” Many of these references are U.S.-specific and are not valid forms of patents in India (e.g. biological patents, business method patents, and software patents).</p>
<p><strong>Resolution</strong><br />Delete the last two sentences in A.12</p>
<p><br />We once again wish to compliment the government on developing such a strong policy on open standards, and hope that our suggestions are incorporated into the text of the final version. We further hope that the policy will be notified at the earliest, as there has already been considerable opportunity for the public and industry to comment on the draft versions of the policy.</p>
<p><br />Yours sincerely,</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash<br />Programme Manager<br />Centre for Internet and Society</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsPublic AccountabilitySoftware Patents2009-07-07T16:49:37ZPageLetter on South Africa's IPRs from Publicly Financed R&D Regulations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-on-south-africas-iprs-from-publicly-financed-r-d-regulations
<b>Being interested in legislations in developing nations styled after the United States' Bayh-Dole Act, CIS responded to the call issued by the South African Department of Science and Technology for comments to the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Regulations.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-on-south-africas-iprs-from-publicly-financed-r-d-regulations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-on-south-africas-iprs-from-publicly-financed-r-d-regulations</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsBayh-DoleIntellectual Property RightsOpen AccessOpen Innovation2011-08-04T04:42:15ZBlog EntryAn Interview With Arjen Kamphuis
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/an-interview-with-arjen-kamphuis
<b>In an email interview with the Centre for Internet and Society, Dutch open source activist Arjen Kamphuis discussed his experience of successfully working with the government for a policy mandating open standards for all government IT in the Netherlands. </b>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>In<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a> 2002 Arjen Kamphuis co-authored a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>parliament motion to mandate open standards for all gov<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>e<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>rnment IT in the Netherlands. The motion was unanimously accepted and, in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>2007, became policy. The Netherland<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>s thus became the first <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>western country to make the use of open standards in public sector IT <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>mandatory. Arjen is now workin<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>g t<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>o e<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>xport this set of policies to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>other European countries with the help of local political parties and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>business partners.</p>
<p>Arjen discussed his experience of lobbying for this policy change and some other questions related to<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a> his<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a> work as a consultant on IT strategy and the implications of nanotechnology and biotechnology in an email interview with the Centre for Internet and Society.<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags">
</span><strong>The Centre for Internet and Society: What is the Dutch government's policy on FOSS and Open <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Standards specifically and intellectual property rights in general? Provide some history, name <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the main lobbying factions in the Netherlands and their policy <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>positions. What was your role in the formulation of these policies?</strong></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><strong>Arjen Kamphuis:</strong> The national action plan 'The Netherlands in Open Connection' is the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>government's answer to a unanimous vote in parliament in November <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>2002. The parliament stated that the market for desktop software was <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>not functioning as it should and that significant vendor lock-in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>effects were harming both individual citizens and society as a whole. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>It requested maximum efforts from the government to change this <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>situation. The suggested method for changing was mandating open <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>standards in all public sector IT and actively supporting the adoption <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of open source software wherever functionally and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>technically feasible. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>I was one of the people who got this process started by contacting a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>member of parliament from the Green Party. This was triggered by <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>my inability to access the website of the national railway on 1 January <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>2002. The website had been redesigned and only allowed access to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>visiters with Internet Explorer. As a Linux user, I had previously had comparable <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>problems with local government websites and electronic tax forms <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>(usage of which was mandatory for small businesses like my consulting<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>start-up).</p>
<p>After the unanimous vote in parliament, several people in the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Dutch open source community, including me, kept the pressure on the government by <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>monitoring major procurements and writing questions for the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ask <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the government. In 2004 this led to a breakthrough when the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Justice Ministry ra<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>n a project to procure 147 million euros' worth of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>desktop software without going through a proper multi-vendor selection <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>process. They only talked to one vendor, and that is against European Union<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>regulations. Since some of the civil servants working on this project <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>were gagged, we can conclude that some people were aware they were <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>breaking the law, yet went ahead anyway. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>When the news broke we made sure the MEPs were armed with the proper <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>questions the next day, and the contract was dropped. In reply to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>questions asked to the government by the MEPs, the responsible <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>ministers admitted that the government was very dependent on <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Microsoft for basic functioning of its office environments; that <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>this was a problem; and that the government would take active <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>steps to remedy this situation by moving forward with <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the requests <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>made in 2002 by parliament.</p>
<p>Two-and-a-half years and an election later, a new under-Minister for <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Economic Affairs, Frank Heemskerk, took up the challenge <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and promised a comprehensive policy. I gave input for this plan in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>mid-2007 and it was formally published and adopted later that year as <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>a national policy for all government and public-sector (i.e. tax <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>funded) organisations. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>The policy has three objectives:</p>
<ul><li>improving interoperability between <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>public sector organisations;</li><li>lowering the vendor-dependence of the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>public sector;</li><li> improving the functioning of the software market <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and supporting the Dutch knowledge economy <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a></li></ul>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Some of the practical measures are the mandating of the use of open <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>standards in all public sector organisations. Whenever software is <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>procured, open source should be considered <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and preferred whenever functionally adequate. These two very basic <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>rules change the entire market for IT in the Dutch public sector (40% <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of the entire market) and is having a profound effect on the way <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>software vendors offer their products as well as the negotiating power <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of the client organisations. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>I continue to advise both the decision makers and the civil servants <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>overseeing the implementation of the policy. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><strong>CIS: What is the current status on the implementation of these<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>policies?</strong></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><strong>AK: </strong>After a slow start the government organisation that is responsable for <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>overseeing the implementation is now up and running. The basic problem <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>is lack of awareness about both the practical value that open <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>standards and open source software can contribute and the underlying <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>political reasons for making it the preferred option for government <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>information processing. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>Thus a lot of the work for the next few years will <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>be communicating these ideas to civil servants (be the<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>y IT <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>professionals or managers who have other jobs). The policy helps a lot <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>because it puts some serious weight behind the whole process. The fact <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>that government organisations have to support Open Document Format for <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>instance significantly heightens their interest in the technical <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>subject matter!<span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>So the policy gives the drive needed to get things moving and now it <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>is up to us to communicate the how and the why in a way that is <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>understandable for people who are new to these concepts. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>I have no doubt it will be a long process, we have over 20 years of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>proprietary legacy built up in our public institutions. Replacing <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>those systems with open alternatives will take many years. All the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>greater a reason to proceed with some urgency. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>The complete policy document has been translated into English and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>released under Creative Commons Licence:<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://appz.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/07ET15.pdf">http://appz.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/07ET15.pdf</a> <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>In December 2007 I gave a talk in Berlin. Here a summary, slides and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>video are available:<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2387.en.html">http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2387.en.html</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p> <strong>CIS: What can a country like India learn from the Dutch <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>government's e<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>xperience in eGovernance and ICT in Education?</strong></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><strong>AK:</strong> I am not familiar with the Indian political process but these are some <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of my lessons learned: </p>
<p>- The government will not do anything unless constant <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and significant pressure is applied by citizens. Politicians and civil <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>servants only act if the pain of acting is less than the pain of not <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>acting. Change is achieved by citizens standing up and working on <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>these problems without guarantee of any reward or even achieving any <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>results (it took us five years to get from a unanimous vote <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>in parliament to an actual policy). <span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>- Big IT companies may be your friend or your enemy. But even if they <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>are your friends they generally will not be at the forefront of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>political action that could be seen as controversial. Once policies <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>are pushed beyond the co<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>ntroversial stage and have been adopted as <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>official policy some of them will support it. Others, with much to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>lose, will fight you and the policy every step of the way. The more <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>money or loss of market share is involved the more radical the methods <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>that are employed. Massive lobbying, applying political pressure <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>through foreign governments, bribery and all kinds of other activities <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>are well-funded, well organised and very common. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>- In moving forward with these policies it's the lack of knowledge and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>vision with the the management of institutions that is by far the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>biggest bottleneck. Without a clear policy from the top it is <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>impossible to get things moving in most organisations.<span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>- Another big problem in switching over local governments and other <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>smaller organisations is the fact that many of the advantages of such <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>a switch is national and/or macro-economic in nature while the initial <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>cost and risk is micro-economic in nature. Hence again the need for a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>national policy. </p>
<p>- The funding required to make significant improvements is often not <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>that large compared to the existing operational budgets. Investing in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the smart use of IT in education for instance is something that can <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>pay for itself very quickly. This is generally also true for adoption <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of open source and open standards in general. By just reducing the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>yearly spend on software licences by 1% the entire government program <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>can be funded. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>- Simply stopping the procurement of new licences (while continuing <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the use of those already paid for) can often free up enough money to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>finance a migration process. This has been the case in the city of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Amsterdam and the French Gendarmes. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>- The actual value of better government services or education is hard <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to quantify in monetary terms. H<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>ow do we value improved <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>responsiveness, transparency, national sovereignty in information <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>processing and supporting local service companies instead of foreign <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>software companies? <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>- IT education should focus on understanding methods and principles, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>not products. The product life-cycle is 18-36 months, the educational <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>process takes many years and the length of a career is decades. Any <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>education with a focus on products leads to knowledge that is <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>irrelevant by the time the degree is finished. Teach people to drive a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>car, not just a Volkswagen or Tata. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>- The cost of physical books per student per year in the Netherlands <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>is now greater that the cost of a laptop. This is insane since the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>content of those books is generally written by teachers who get paid <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>very little for it. Using the funds to pay those teachers instad of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the publishers and releasing the content under a free licence will <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>free up resources to develop better educational programs and provide <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>all students with computational tools to use them. All without <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>increasing the total cost compared to our current situation. The <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>financial numbers will be different for India but the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>basic principle is the same and works even better given the larger <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>scale of India. The cost of producing and distributing electronic <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>educational content will drop practically to zero when compared to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>physical on a per-student basis. Using funds to support teachers in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the use of e-learning with open content is the way forward. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span> <strong>CIS: How can a local support environment for open technologies be <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>created? Can local SMEs ever substitute for the transnational <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>proprietary giants?</strong><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><strong>AK: </strong>Whether SMEs can supplant multinationals depends on the product being <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>replaced. CPU manufacturing requires a very high upfront investment in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>R&D and manufacturing capability. This is usually far beyond any but a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>handful of companies. With software development and services things <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>are very different. Software development only requires a human with <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>programming skills, a good idea and a computer. The Free Software <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Movement has shown clearly that distributed methods of software <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>development can lead to high quality products with excellent local <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>support systems. Local organisations (or communities that are not even <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>organisations) can often understand local needs and respond to local <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>changes much better, faster and cheaper than large, lumbering <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>corporations. If local organisations work together globally to share <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>knowledge (and code) for those parts they all need they can beat any <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>centralised system. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>What many senior business and government leaders are struggling with <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>is the realisation that many of the 'truths' they have learned while <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>studying economics or business management or some such subject turn out to be <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>empirically incorrect. For example: it has become clear there is no <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>causal relationship between the cost of software and its quality or <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>utility. This must be a fact that is difficult to truly understand and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>accept if you have been brought up believing the gospel of the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Anglo-Saxon economic worldview. The current economic crisis is a great <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>help in questioning some of those beliefs and opens up room for new <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>ideas about economic vs. societal value of technology and its <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>relationship to<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a> businesses trying to earn a living. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span> <strong>CIS: Could you tell us about the Dutch government's rollback on <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>electronic voting machines? What is your opinion on the use<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>electronic voting machines in the upcoming elections in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>India?<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></strong></p>
<p><strong>AK: </strong>From the mid '80s onward, voting computers were introduced in the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Netherlands. By 2006, the vast majority of all elections were being <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>performed by proprietary computer systems. Citizens would press a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>button and then go home to watch TV. Some software that no-one could <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>control, monitor or properly audit would spit out a result and that <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>would be it -- new government. Only a handful of engineers (all working <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>for the companies that made the voting computers) actually knew what <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the software did and could make the computer system say anything they <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>wanted. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>When the city of Amsterdam (the last holdout using paper ballots) <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>announced in 2006 that it was moving to voting computers, a group of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>activists organised a campaign to ban voting computers. We felt that <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the very nature of democracy was under attack by running the election <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>process in a way that makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>check the validity of the election. It also makes fraud a lot harder <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to detect. Detectability of fraud is the one of the primary properties <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>any election process should have. We all know election fraud is also <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>possible with non-electronic means but keeping it a secret is much <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>harder in such cases (as we saw in the US and Zimbabwean election over <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the last years). There was a actual case of suspected voter fraud in a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Dutch municipal election and the judge concluded that while the fraud <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>seemed likely it could not be proven. Regrettably for the suspected <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>council member the fraud could also not be disproven. This <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html"><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></a>shows very <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>clearly that such a method is wholly unsuitable for application in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>real democratic processes. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Through lots of media attention, a few spectacular hacks showing the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>technical insecurity of the systems, and legal pressure, we forced the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>government in 2007 to reverse the approval of the voting computers and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>go back to an all-paper balloting system. This reversal is part of a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>global backlash against electronic voting systems. Comparable changes <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>have been going on in many US states and all over Europe. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>I think India should have voting process that can be understood and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>monitored by its citizens. This understanding and monitoring should be <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>possible without requiring advanced degrees in computer science, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>software engineering and electronics. The only way to have such a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>process is when there is a paper ballot involved. Such a ballot could <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>be printed by a computer to increase the ease of use but <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>all-electronic solutions are ruled out by the basic demands of what a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>democracy is. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>India should move to either all paper systems or voting computer <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>backed-up by a voter-verified paper trail. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>Are more extensive telling of the tale can be found here:<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English">http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English</a> <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>This is a link to the Berlin CCC conference of Rop Gongrijp's 2007 <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>presentation (with video): <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html">http://event<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>s.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html</a> <span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.blackboxvoting.org/">http://www.blackboxvoting.org</a> has a wealth of information on this subject. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><strong>CIS: What are the services provided by Gendo? Could you describe <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>some <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of the projects that you have undertaken?</strong><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><strong>AK:</strong> My company (gendo.nl) also provides consulting services in the area of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>IT strategy, development of open IT architectures and implementing <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>those in mixed open source/proprietary environments. We are currently <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>advising both national and local government organisations in the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>implementation of policies and plans to move to open standards and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>open source software. We are also involved in projects where we do the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>actual development and implementation of new systems to enable <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>innovation and lessen the dependance of our client on proprietary <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>systems. Currently we are involved with a healthcare organisation <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>where we are assisting in re-architecting their entire IT environment <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to allow service innovation, lower cost and increase information <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>security. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>We have also been involved in information security work and other <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>auditing in the financial services and government sector. Here our <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>activities focus on the grey area between technology and process. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Outside the field of IT we also do other consulting work such as <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>scenario planning and strategic future studies, mostly for large <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>corporate clients. Most of the big Anglo-Dutch multinationals such as <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Shell or Unilever are on our client list. We also have a large number <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of clients in the financial services and insurance sector. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>For all of these clients we organise presentations and brainstorming <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>sessions, often preceded by research. This helps the leaders in those <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>organisations think about the nature of rapid, technology-driven <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>changes in their markets and the world in general. These insights are <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>then translated into new products, services and ways of delivering <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>them. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>Forgive me if this all sounds a bit vague but with many of these <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>clients there is some confidentiality agreement involved. <br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><strong>CIS: Could you tell us more about yourself? Maybe you would like <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>share some formative experiences.</strong><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><strong>AK:</strong> Writing my first paper on black holes at age 11 showed me that <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>grown-ups usually also don't know what is going on in the universe <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>either. Despite rumours to the contrary parents, teachers, senior <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>managers and politicians are not all-knowing and are stumbling about <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>just like most two-year-olds where complex issues are concerned. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>Over the last quarter century I've had this intuition reconfirmed <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>again and again. In a world that is changing faster and faster <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>experience becomes obsolete rather quickly and wisdom is no longer the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>sole purview of older, m<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>ore senior, people. We need young smart-asses <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>who have not yet learned what is impossible, so they go out there and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>do it. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"><br /></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>-----</p>
<span class="visualHighlight">Arjen Kamphuis (born 1972) studied Science & Policy at Utrecht University and worked for IBM as Unix specialist, Tivoli consultant and software instructor. As IT-strategy consultant at Twynstra Gudde he was involved in starting up Kennisnet, the Dutch educational network. Since 2001 he is operating as an independent adviser of companies and governments. He co-authored, in 2002, a motion in parliament that ultimately turned, in 2007, into a full-fledged policy of the Dutch government mandating the use of open source software in all government and public sector IT operations. <br /><br />Arjen at present divides his attention between IT-policy and the convergence of IT, biotechnology and nanotechnology and its social and economic implications. His customers include: Shell, Unilever, Pfizer, Stork, and various hospitals, governmental institutions and insurance companies. Arjen guest lectures on technology policy at various universities and colleges. <br /><br />When not consulting Arjen is actively involved in (digital) civil liberties, the open source movement and criticizing the war on terror.</span>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/an-interview-with-arjen-kamphuis'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/an-interview-with-arjen-kamphuis</a>
</p>
No publishersachiaInterviewOpen StandardsFLOSSIntellectual Property Rights2011-08-18T05:01:53ZBlog EntryWorkshop on Reforming the International ICT Standardization System
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system
<b>On Day 4, the last day, of the Internet Governance Forum, a workshop was conducted by the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards on the reforming the international ICT standardisation system. The panellists were Bob Jolliffe of Freedom to Innovate South Africa, Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, Ashish Gautam of IBM India, and Aslam Raffee, Chairperson of the Government IT Officers' Council, OSS Working Group, Republic of South Africa, who moderated the session.</b>
<p>Mr. Rafee, after introducing the panellists, laid out the parameters of the discussion. He noted that the discussion was not about "open standards" per se, but about the standardisation process.</p>
<p>Mr. Jolliffe noted that the main problems revolved around the question of legitimacy of the Standard Setting Organizations, which often arises from "standardisation by corporations" (a phrase coined by Martin Bryan), as shown by the representatives of the individual countries to the international bodies. For the international standardization process to acquire legitimacy, the national bodies need to do so first. A start can be made, Mr. Jolliffe noted, through simple steps like increase in stakeholder participation beyond vendors, full disclosure of institutional affiliations at the standardisation bodies, better streamlining of processes such as the fast-track system, and full and clear disclosures with regard to IP licensing terms would help in increasing accountability and legitimacy of standard setting organizations.</p>
<p>He also indicated that financial transparency, modernisation of processes (including remote participation), regulation of proportional influence of private interests, a code of best practices and innovation in patent searches, full interest disclosures, and clear display of IPR policies of committees would help in increasing the openness of standards.</p>
<p>Mr. Abraham chose to focus on the national standardization processes, and the lessons that can be learnt from those. He highlighted that the discussions around open standards were really discussions about standards followed by public institutions. He analogized the situation to private houses vs. the public road infrastructure, noting how the road infrastructure cannot be private. Ensuring that the public infrastructure was open to all, he said, was the important role played by the standardisation process. He went on to highlight the importance of open standards as a lever in the hands of governments which can be used to fix monopoly situations, as it was in the case of SCOSTA smart card standard, where the use of an open standard led to a drop in price from Rs.600 to Rs.30 and increased the number of vendors from 3 to 12. He then narrated a number of "stories" from India, Pakistan and Malaysia to show the various forms of weaknesses within the national standard setting processes. He further concluded that countries with weak institutions are the ones less likely to support open standards.</p>
<p>Mr. Abraham added the need to adopt common definitions of "open standards" and transparency of processes and encouragement of remote participation as suggestions for the standardization system.</p>
<p>Mr. Gautam from IBM India chose to talk about the standards principles that the company follows, and the need for reform of the standardization processes.<br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsWorkshop2011-08-23T02:56:30ZBlog EntryReport on Open Standards for GISW2008
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/report-on-open-standards-for-gisw2008
<b>In this report, Sunil Abraham lays out the importance and the policy implications of Open Standards.</b>
<div id="introduction">
<p>[<a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/sunil-abrahams-publications/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Report on Open Standards for GISW 2008">PDF copy</a>]</p>
<p>Most computer users today remain
“digitally colonised” (Bhattacharya, 2008) due to our unquestioning use
of proprietary standards. As users of proprietary standards we usually
forget that we lose the right to access our own files the moment the
licence for the associated software expires. For example, if I were to
store data, information or knowledge in .doc, .xls or .ppt format, my
ability to read my own files expires the moment the licence for my copy
of Microsoft Office expires.</p>
<h3>Definition</h3>
<p>Unlike
the terms “free software” or “open source software”, the term “open
standard” does not have a universally accepted definition. The free and
open source software (FOSS) community largely believes that an open
standard is:</p>
</div>
<p>[S]ubject to full public assessment and use
without constraints [royalty-free] in a manner equally available to all
parties; without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an open
standard themselves; free from legal or technical clauses that limit
its utilisation by any party or in any business model; managed and
further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open
to the equal participation of competitors and third parties; available
in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a
complete implementation equally available to all parties (Greve, 2007).</p>
<div id="introduction">
<h3>The controversy</h3>
<p>Proprietary
software manufacturers, vendors and their lobbyists often provide a
definition of open standards that is not in line with the above
definition on two counts (Nah, 2006).</p>
<p>One, they do not
think it is necessary for an open standard to be available on a
royalty-free basis as long as it is available under a “reasonable and
non-discriminatory” (RAND) licence. This means that there are some
patents associated with the standard and the owners of the patents have
agreed to license them under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
(W3C, 2002). One example is the audio format MP3, an ISO/IEC
[International Organisation for Standardisation/International
Electrotechnical Commission] standard where the associated patents are
owned by Thomson Consumer Electronics and the Fraunhofer Society of
Germany. A developer of a game with MP3 support would have to pay
USD 2,500 as royalty for using the standard. While this may be
reasonable in the United States (US), it is unthinkable for an
entrepreneur from Bangladesh. Additionally, RAND licences are
incompatible with most FOSS licensing requirements. Simon Phipps of Sun
Microsystems says that FOSS “serves as the canary in the coalmine for
the word ‘open’. Standards are truly open when they can be implemented
without fear as free software in an open source community” (Phipps,
2007). RAND licences also retard the growth of FOSS, since they are
patented in a few countries. Despite the fact that software is not
patentable in most parts of the world, the makers of various
distributions of GNU/Linux do not include reverse-engineered drivers,
codecs, etc., in the official builds for fear of being sued. Only the
large corporation-backed distributions of GNU/Linux can afford to pay
the royalties needed to include patented software in the official
builds (in this way enabling an enhanced out-of-the-box experience).
This has the effect of slowing the adoption of GNU/Linux, as less
experienced users using community-backed distributions do not have
access to the wide variety of drivers and codecs that users of other
operating systems do (Disposable, 2004). This vicious circle
effectively ensures negligible market presence of smaller
community-driven projects by artificial reduction of competition.</p>
<p>Two,
proprietary software promoters do not believe that open standards
should be “managed and further developed independently of any single
vendor,” as the following examples will demonstrate. This is equally
applicable to both new and existing standards.</p>
<p>Microsoft’s
Office Open XML (OOXML) is a relatively new standard which the FOSS
community sees as a redundant alternative to the existing Open Document
Format (ODF). During the OOXML process, delegates were unhappy with the
fact that many components were specific to Microsoft technology,
amongst other issues. By the end of a fast-track process at the ISO,
Microsoft stands accused of committee stuffing: that is, using its
corporate social responsibility wing to coax non-governmental
organisations to send form letters to national standards committees,
and haranguing those who opposed OOXML. Of the twelve new national
board members that joined ISO after the OOXML process started, ten
voted “yes” in the first ballot (Weir, 2007). The European Commission,
which has already fined Microsoft USD 2.57 billion for anti-competitive
behaviour, is currently investigating the allegations of committee
stuffing (Calore, 2007). Microsoft was able to use its financial muscle
and monopoly to fast-track the standard and get it approved. In this
way it has managed to subvert the participatory nature of a
standards-setting organisation. So even though Microsoft is ostensibly
giving up control of its primary file format to the ISO, it still
exerts enormous influence over the future of the standard.</p>
<p>HTML,
on the other hand, is a relatively old standard which was initially
promoted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), an
international community of techies. However, in 2002, seven years after
the birth of HTML 2.0, the US Department of Justice alleged that
Microsoft used the strategy of “embrace, extend, and extinguish” (US
DoJ, 1999) in an attempt to create a monopoly among web browsers. It
said that Microsoft used its dominance in the desktop operating system
market to achieve dominance in the web-authoring tool and browser
market by introducing proprietary extensions to the HTML standard
(Festa, 2002). In other words, financial and market muscle have been
employed by proprietary software companies – in these instances,
Microsoft – to hijack open standards.</p>
<h3>The importance</h3>
<p>There
are many technical, social and ethical reasons for the adoption and use
of open standards. Some of the reasons that should concern governments
and other organisations utilising public money – such as multilaterals,
bilaterals, civil society organisations, research organisations and
educational institutions – are listed below.</p>
<ul><li><strong>Innovation/competitiveness:</strong>
Open standards are the bases of most technological innovations, the
best example of which would be the internet itself (Raymond, 2000). The
building blocks of the internet and associated services like the world
wide web are based on open standards such as TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, CSS,
XML, POP3 and SMTP. Open standards create a level playing field that
ensures greater competition between large and small, local and foreign,
and new and old companies, resulting in innovative products and
services. Instant messaging, voice over internet protocol (VoIP),
wikis, blogging, file-sharing and many other applications with
large-scale global adoption were invented by individuals and small and
medium enterprises, and not by multinational corporations. </li><li><strong>Greater interoperability:</strong>
Open standards ensure the ubiquity of the internet experience by
allowing different devices to interoperate seamlessly. It is only due
to open standards that consumers are able to use products and services
from competing vendors interchangeably and simultaneously in a seamless
fashion, without having to learn additional skills or acquire
converters. For instance, the mail standard IMAP can be used from a
variety of operating systems (Mac, Linux and Windows), mail clients
(Evolution, Thunderbird, Outlook Express) and web-based mail clients.
Email would be a completely different experience if we were not able to
use our friends’ computers, our mobile phones, or a cybercafé to check
our mail. </li><li><strong>Customer autonomy: </strong>Open
standards also empower consumers and transform them into co-creators or
“prosumers” (Toffler, 1980). Open standards prevent vendor lock-in by
ensuring that the customer is able to shift easily from one product or
service provider to another without significant efforts or costs
resulting from migration. </li><li><strong>Reduced cost: </strong>Open
standards eliminate patent rents, resulting in a reduction of total
cost of ownership. This helps civil society develop products and
services for the poor. </li><li><strong>Reduced obsolescence: </strong>Software
companies can leverage their clients’ dependence on proprietary
standards to engineer obsolescence into their products and force their
clients to keep upgrading to newer versions of software. Open standards
ensure that civil society, governments and others can continue to use
old hardware and software, which can be quite handy for sectors that
are strapped for financial resources. </li><li><strong>Accessibility: </strong>Operating
system-level accessibility infrastructure such as magnifiers, screen
readers and text-to-voice engines require compliance to open standards.
Open standards therefore ensure greater access by people with
disabilities, the elderly, and neo-literate and illiterate users.
Examples include the US government’s Section 508 standards, and the
World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) WAI-AA standards.</li><li><strong>Free access to the state:</strong>
Open standards enable access without forcing citizens to purchase or
pirate software in order to interact with the state. This is critical
given the right to information and the freedom of information
legislations being enacted and implemented in many countries these
days. </li><li><strong>Privacy/security:</strong> Open
standards enable the citizen to examine communications between personal
and state-controlled devices and networks. For example, open standards
allow users to see whether data from their media player and browser
history are being transmitted along to government servers when they
file their tax returns. Open standards also help prevent corporate
surveillance. </li><li><strong>Data longevity and archiving: </strong>Open
standards ensure that the expiry of software licences does not prevent
the state from accessing its own information and data. They also ensure
that knowledge that has been passed on to our generation, and the
knowledge generated by our generation, is safely transmitted to all
generations to come. </li><li><strong>Media monitoring:</strong>
Open standards ensure that the voluntary sector, media monitoring
services and public archives can keep track of the ever-increasing
supply of text, audio, video and multimedia generated by the global
news, entertainment and gaming industries. In democracies, watchdogs
should be permitted to reverse-engineer proprietary standards and
archive critical ephemeral media in open standards.</li></ul>
<h3>Policy implications</h3>
<p>Corporations
have a right to sell products based on proprietary standards just as
consumers have a right to choose between products that use open
standards, proprietary standards, or even a combination of such
standards. Governments, however, have a responsibility to use open
standards, especially for interactions with the public and where the
data handled has a direct impact on democratic values and quality of
citizenship. In developing countries, governments have greater
responsibility because most often they account for over 50% of the
revenues of proprietary software vendors. Therefore, by opting for open
standards, governments can correct an imbalanced market situation
without needing any additional resources. Unfortunately, many
governments lack the expertise to counter the campaigns of fear,
uncertainty and doubt unleashed by proprietary standards lobbyists with
unlimited expense accounts.</p>
<p>Most governments from the
developing world do not participate in international standard-setting
bodies. On the other hand, proprietary software lobbyists like the
Business Software Alliance (BSA) and Comptia attend all national
meetings on standards. This has forced many governments to shun these
forums and exacerbate the situation by creating more (totally new)
standards. Therefore, governments need the support of academic and
civil society organisations in order to protect the interests of the
citizen. For example, the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur
(IIT-K) helped the government of India develop the open standard Smart
Card Operating System for Transport Applications (SCOSTA) for smart
card-based driving licences and vehicle registration documents.
Proprietary vendors tried to jettison the move by saying that the
standard was technically not feasible. IIT-K developed a reference
implementation on FOSS to belie the vendor's claims. As a consequence,
the government of India was able to increase the number of empanelled
smart-card vendors from four to fifteen and reduce the price of a smart
card by around USD 7 each (UNDP, 2007a). This will hopefully result in
enormous savings during the implementation of a national multi-purpose
identification card in India.</p>
<p>In some instances,
proprietary standards are technically superior or more universally
supported in comparison to open standards. In such cases the government
may be forced to adopt proprietary and de facto standards in the short
and medium term. But for long-term technical, financial and societal
benefits, many governments across the world today are moving towards
open standards. The most common policy instruments for implementation
of open standards policy are government interoperability frameworks
(GIFs). Governments that have published GIFs include the United
Kingdom, Denmark, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Malaysia, Hong
Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Australia (UNDP, 2007b).</p>
<p>While
challenges to the complete adoption of open standards in the public
sector and civil society remain, one thing is certain: the global march
towards openness, though slow, is irreversible and inevitable.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<p align="left">Bhattacharya, J. (2008) <em>Technology Standards: A Route to Digital Colonization. Open Source, Open Standards and Technological Sovereignty</em>.
. <br />
Available at:<br />
<a href="http://knowledge.oscc.org.my/practice-areas/%E2%80%8Cgovernment%E2%80%8C/oss-seminar-putrajaya-2008/technology-standards-a-route-to-digital/at_download/file">knowledge.oscc.org.my/practice-areas/government/oss-seminar-putrajaya-2008/technology-standards-a-route-to-digital/at_download/file</a></p>
<p align="left">Calore, M. (2007) Microsoft Allegedly Bullies and Bribes to Make Office an International Standard. <em>Wired</em>, 31 August. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/08/ooxml_vote">www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/08/ooxml_vote</a></p>
<p align="left">Disposable (2004) <em>Ubuntu multimedia HOWTO</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.oldskoolphreak.com/tfiles/%E2%80%8Chack/%E2%80%8Cubuntu.txt">www.oldskoolphreak.com/tfiles/hack/ubuntu.txt</a></p>
<p align="left">Festa, P. (2002) W3C members: Do as we say, not as we do. <em>CNET News</em>, 5 September. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-956778.html">news.cnet.com/2100-1023-956778.html</a></p>
<p>Greve, G. (2007) <em>An emerging understanding of open standards</em>.<br />
. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.fsfe.org/%E2%80%8Cfellows%E2%80%8C/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards">www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards</a></p>
<p align="left">Nah, S.H. (2006) <em>FOSS Open Standards</em> <em>Primer</em>. New Delhi: UNDP-APDIP. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/foss-openstds-withnocover.pdf">www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/foss-openstds-withnocover.pdf</a></p>
<p align="left">Phipps, S. (2007) <em>Roman Canaries</em>.. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/%E2%80%8Croman_canaries">blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/roman_canaries</a></p>
<p align="left">Raymond, E.S. (2000) <em>The Magic Cauldron</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/%E2%80%8Ccathedral-%E2%80%8Cbazaar/%E2%80%8Cmagic-%E2%80%8Ccauldron/%E2%80%8Cindex.html">www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/index.html</a></p>
<p align="left">Toffler, A. (1980) <em>The Third Wave</em>. New York: Bantam.</p>
<p align="left">UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007a) <em>e-Government Interoperability: A Review of Government Interoperability Frameworks in Selected Countries</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif/gifeprimer">www.apdip.net/projects/gif/gifeprimer</a></p>
<p align="left">UNDP (2007b) <em>e-Government Interoperability: Guide</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif/GIF-Guide.pdf">www.apdip.net/projects/gif/GIF-Guide.pdf</a></p>
<p align="left">US DoJ (Department of Justice) (1999) <em>Proposed Findings of Fact – Revised</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/%E2%80%8Catr/%E2%80%8Ccases/%E2%80%8Cf2600/v-a.pdf">www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/v-a.pdf</a></p>
<p align="left">W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) (2002) <em>Current patent practice</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#def-RAND">www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#def-RAND</a></p>
<p align="left">Weir, R. (2007) <em>How to hack ISO</em>. <br />
Available at: <a href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/09/how-to-hack-iso.html">www.robweir.com/blog/2007/09/how-to-hack-iso.html</a></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/report-on-open-standards-for-gisw2008'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/report-on-open-standards-for-gisw2008</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsFLOSS2009-01-05T06:52:54ZBlog EntryReport on Open Standards for GISW 2008
https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/sunil/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf
<b>A report on Open Standards prepared by Sunil Abraham, for the Global Information Society Watch 2008. As on their site, GISWatch focuses on monitoring progress made towards implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action agenda and other international and national commitments related to information and communications. It also provides analytical overviews of institutions involved in implementation. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/sunil/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/sunil/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T02:57:53ZFileDCOS Agreement on Procurement
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement
<b>On December 6, 2008, at the closing of the third Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS), of which the Centre for Internet and Society is a member, released an agreement entitled the "Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards".</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsInternet Governance ForumWorkshop2011-08-23T02:58:35ZBlog EntryResponse to the Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response
<b>Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, authored a response to the draft Open Standards Policy document published by the National Informatics Centre,
Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.</b>
<p><span id="parent-fieldname-description" class="kssattr-atfieldname-description kssattr-templateId-widgets/textarea kssattr-macro-textarea-field-view inlineEditable">The National Informatics Centre (NIC),
Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) has recently published a <a class="external-link" href="http://egovstandards.gov.in/Policy_Open_Std_review">Draft Policy on Open Standards for eGovernance</a>. Members of the public have been invited to provide feedback to the document. The last date for feedback is 21st November 2008.</span></p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society has prepared a draft response to the draft policy. This response letter only deals
with the policy document from the perspective of the global FLOSS
movement. This is not meant to be comprehensive feedback to the
document itself.</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Institutional Co-signatories</h3>
<ol><li>Richard Stallman, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.fsf.org">Free Software Foundation</a>, USA</li><li>Mishi Choudhary, Partner, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sflc.org">Software Freedom Law Centre</a>, USA <br /></li><li>Dr. Alvin Marcelo, Director for Southeast Asia, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iosn.net">International Open Source Network</a>, the Philippines <br /></li><li>Lawrence Liang, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.altlawforum.org">Alternative Law Forum</a>, Bangalore, India<br /></li><li>Dr. G. Nagarjuna, Chaiman, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.gnu.org.in">Free Software Foundation of India</a>, Mumbai, India<br /></li><li>Vinay Sreenivasa, Member, <a class="external-link" href="http://itforchange.net">IT for Change</a>, Bangalore, India <br /></li></ol>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Individual Co-signatories<strong> </strong></h3>
<ol><li>Shahid Akhtar, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iosn.net">International Open Source Network</a>, Canada</li><li>Denis Jaromil Rojo, Developer, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dyne.org">Dyne</a>, Netherlands<br /></li><li>Raj Mathur, Consultant, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.kandalaya.org">Kandalaya</a>, New Delhi, India<br /></li><li>Marek Tuszynski, Founder, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.tacticaltech.org">Tactical Technology Collective</a>, United Kingdom</li></ol>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Text <br /></h3>
<p>Dear Sir or Madam,</p>
<p>The government had done a commendable job of releasing a progressive and forward-looking policy on the usage of open standards in e-governance. Globally the European Union's Electronic Interoperability Framework (EIF) guidelines (version 2 of which is currently in the draft stage) is considered to be the gold standard as far as open standard policy is concerned. The draft National Policy on Open Standards meets all of the EIF's four open standard requirements. However, there is still some room for improvement as discussed below.</p>
<p>While the document talks of the standard being royalty free (4.1 and 5.1.1) and without any patent-related encumbrance (4.1), it limits those requirements "for the life time of the standard" (5.1.1), which seems a bit ambiguous and is not defined in the appendix either. It would be preferable to make it royalty-free for the lifetime of the patents (if any) as open archival material shouldn't one day (after the end of "life time of the standard", and before the expiry of the patents) suddenly be forced to become paid archives. It would be desirable to make declarations of patent non-enforcement irrevocable (as the EU EIF does), by incorporating a wording such as: "irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis, without any patent-related encumbrance". </p>
<p>There should also be a separate provision in the "policy statement on open standards adoption in e-governance" section of the document making explicit that there can be no restraint on use or implementation of the standard (as has been stated in the "guiding principles" section). </p>
<p>Perhaps when talking of specification documents (5.1.5) the words "any restrictions" could be amended to include a few examples of what the term "any restrictions" would include. The document could make explicit that it must be permissible for all to copy, distribute and use the specifications freely, without any cost or legal barriers. </p>
<p>Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process, the document could perhaps be more explicit regarding remedial measures that could be undertaken in the event – for example use of competition law, as in the case of the EU EIF which states: "Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process." </p>
<p>As it stands, the draft document addresses many notions of openness (freely accessible, at zero cost, non-discriminatory, extensible, and without any legal hindrances, thus preventing vendor lock-in), and there is much to applaud in it. It has a clear implementation mechanism, with a laudable aim of establishing a monitoring agency and an Open Source Solutions Laboratory. It is applicable not only to future e-governance initiatives, but to existing ones as well. Furthermore, it also has an in-built review mechanism, which is crucial given the rate of change of technologies and consequently of the requirements of the government. Thus, the draft policy document very clearly encourages competition and innovation in the software industry and promotes the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement and industry. As researchers from UNU MERIT have pointed out, even a nominal fee for usage of a standard can lead to exclusion of open source software implementations, leading to less competition in the software industry. Thus, all in all this draft document represents a commendable effort by the Indian government towards a sustainable and robust e-governance structure based on open standards. However, a few small amendments as suggested in this letter would make it an even greater guarantor of openness.</p>
<p><br />Yours sincerely,<br />Sunil Abraham<br />Director (Policy)<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br /><br /></p>
<p>Please download the draft response in the format you prefer.</p>
<ol><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.odt" class="internal-link" title="Oo.org Format">Open Office </a><br /></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.doc" class="internal-link" title="MS Format">MS Office</a></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-09-sept-2008.pdf" class="internal-link" title="PDF Format">PDF</a><br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/the-response</a>
</p>
No publishersunilOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T03:05:56ZPagePDF Format
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-09-sept-2008.pdf
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-09-sept-2008.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-09-sept-2008.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisheradminOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T03:06:23ZFileOo.org Format
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.odt
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.odt'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.odt</a>
</p>
No publisheradminOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T03:06:49ZFileMS Format
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.doc
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.doc'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/uploads/response-to-indian-open-standards-policy-10-sept-2008.doc</a>
</p>
No publisheradminOpen StandardsPublications2011-08-23T03:07:11ZFile