I didn't quite understand what being "more loyal than the king" is
supposed to be a comment on. I apologise in advance if I've been very
stupid in not understanding the context in which you've posted that
missive (since I can't comprehend your introductory comment) and if
that makes this reply completely unwarranted.
I don't think ANSI's stance is at all in consonance with the opinions
that people have so far expressed on this mailing list, nor is it, in
my belief, in the best interest of FLOSS. ANSI specifically states
that introducing cost-free licensing terms ("available irrevocably on
a royalty-free basis", etc.) are antithetical to "openness", which
they perceive as being primarily about procedure, and for the sake of
balance in terms of usage by implementers, as including RAND terms as
well. To quote from their position paper (on why they oppose
introduction of licensing terms within the meaning of "openness" of a
standard):
<quote>
First, it ignores the fact that essential patent holders have the
right to decide how they will license their intellectual property. The
terms and conditions used in the development of “open standards”
should balance the interests of those who will implement the standard
with the interests and voluntary cooperation of those who own
intellectual property rights that are essential to implementation of
the standard. Such terms and conditions should readily promote, and
not unreasonably burden, accessibility to the standard for the
communities of interested implementers. To achieve such balance, the
payment of reasonable license fees and/or other reasonable and
nondiscriminatory license terms may be required by the intellectual
property rights holders. This balance of licensing rights (rather than
waiver thereof) is consistent with an open standard. The word “open”
does not imply “free” from monetary compensation or other reasonable
and nondiscriminatory license terms.
Further, an open standard may involve the payment of a fee to obtain a
copy of the standard. Such fees are sometimes used to offset the costs
associated with managing open standards development process
</quote>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 21:54, jitendra<[email protected]> wrote:
> Those trying to be more loyal than the king may do well to hear from the
> National Body from US.
>
> http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/other_documents/other_doc.aspx?menuid=7#Definition
>
> Survey on U.S. Standards Policies
>
> On March 16, 2009, Don Purcell of The Center for Global Standards Analysis
> issued an e-mail survey concerning the roles of the private and public
> sectors in the development of private sector global technology standards.
> The survey was conducted with the knowledge and blessing of Mike Quear,
> staff director of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and
> Technology, Subcommittee for Technology and Innovation.
>
> In specific response to Mr. Purcell’s two-question survey, ANSI staff
> developed a proposed response on behalf of the Institute with input from
> members of the Executive Committee.
>
> Following a comment period and a letter ballot, ANSI’s response was accepted
> by the National Policy Committee (NPC) on May 26, 2009. The final ANSI
> survey response was submitted to Mr. Purcell on May 29, 2009.
>
> How to Take Action
>
>
>
> Review ANSI’s response to the survey ( .pdf / .doc )
>
> Read the ANSI Online news item about the survey
>
> Members of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment community are
> invited to review the survey questions, take freely from the ANSI response
> offered above, and submit their own responses directly to Mr. Purcell to by
> the June 30, 2009, deadline.
>
> The survey questions are available as part of Mr. Purcell’s email
> communication with ANSI and are posted below for reference.
>
> Given the impact of Globalization, is there a need to change current United
> States policies for development of private sector technology standards;
> i.e., that the private sector will provide the leadership and resources for
> development of such standards, as necessary, and the government will play a
> supporting role? If so, what specific changes should be made to roles of the
> private and public sectors in developing such standards?
>
> Given increased attention to national standards education programs around
> the world, should the United States increase its support for U.S. standards
> education programs in order to maintain or enhance its competitive position
> in the global marketplace? If so, what are your organization’s specific
> recommendations for increased standards education support in the private,
> public and academic sectors? Does your organization currently have an
> existing standards education program?
>
> Definition of “Open Standards”
>
> The term “open standard” has been used recently by some to describe a
> standard that may be copied, used, and distributed for no fee and/or whose
> embedded technology is irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis. This
> definition has created some confusion among standards developers and users
> generally because it is contrary to the process-based definition of “open”
> and “openness” long held by ANSI and many other recognized standards bodies
> who understand the term to describe a collaborative, balanced, and
> consensus-based approval process for the promulgation of domestic or
> international standards.
>
> This traditional definition is in alignment with the policies of the
> International Organization for Standardization, the International
> Electrotechnical Commission, and Annex 4 of the Second Triennial Review of
> the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement.
>
> In an effort to offer guidance to the standardization community regarding
> appropriate use of the term “open” when used to describe a standards
> development process, ANSI is pleased to offer the following background
> information.
>
> ANSI IPRPC Critical Issue Paper
>
> In May 2005, ANSI published a Critical Issue Paper that was developed and
> approved by the Institute’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy Committee
> (IPRPC). Entitled “Current Attempts to Change Established Definition of
> ‘Open’ Standards,” the paper asserts that ANSI and many U.S.-based
> developers of voluntary consensus standards have used the terms “open” or
> “openness” to characterize a process that has certain important features.
> These include:
>
> consensus by a group or “consensus body” that includes representatives from
> materially affected and interested parties;
>
> broad-based public review and comment on draft standards;
>
> consideration of and response to comments submitted by voting members of the
> relevant consensus body as well as by the public;
>
> incorporation of approved changes into a draft standard; and
>
> availability of an appeal by any participant alleging that due process
> principles were not respected during the standards-development process.
>
> USPTO Support
>
> At a meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents in March
> 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) expressed strong support
> for the private-sector led and public-sector supported U.S. standards system
> and for the use of standards developed through an open and consensus-based
> process.
>
> Specifically, the document from the USPTO outlined the benefits of open
> standards, and the USPTO stated “the United States supports and strongly
> encourages the use of open standards, as traditionally defined, that is,
> those developed through an open, collaborative process, whether or not
> intellectual property is involved.” (Emphasis added)
>
> The document goes on to say that “Open standards can improve
> interoperability, facilitate interactions ranging from information exchange
> to international trade, and foster market competition.”
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:26 PM, H.S.Rai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM, vinay ವಿನಯ್<[email protected]> wrote:
>> > government through the industry body
>>
>> I guess MAIT nad NASSCOM.
>>
>> > to “create awareness” on the advantages
>> > of multiple standards.
>>
>> Let us try to convince Govt. to experiment with following to taste
>> advantage of multiple standards:
>>
>> 1) 220V in offices and 110V electricity in houses
>>
>> 2) Left hand drive on National Highways and right hand drive on rest
>> of roads, or still better, males should drive left and female should
>> drive right.
>>
>> --
>> H.S.Rai
>> _______________________________________________
>> network mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
>
>
>
> --
> jitendra
>
> _______________________________________________
> network mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
>
>
--
Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
