[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [egov-ms] OASIS eGOV STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING 14TH NOVEMBER - PAPERS
|
John My apologies for not seeing your note earlier about me being on the hook to circulate a paper as part of the discussion around the open standards topic you have added to the agenda. As I have mentioned several
times in the past as we have encountered government policies that require the use of “open standards” there no single definition of that term and I doubt there ever will be, even if we look beyond the most common point of debate (the FRAND vs Royalty Free
debate) and look at something like the interplay between membership fees and charging/not charging for a specification. But there is little discussion of whether proposed definitions of that term map to the practices that SSOs use today and more important,
there is almost no discussion of just how the underlying government objectives of the policies are met by such a definition (and sometimes what those objectives are in the first place). What I have suggested is that it would be helpful to move beyond a debate
about which definition of open standard we should pick to consideration of a more important set of questions around the impact of choosing one definition or another, including whether the definition limits or expands choice of standards, adversely impacts
future use of standards currently in use, etc. I also think it’s important to start asking some questions about the link between proposed definitions and the perceived benefits from a policy perspective of those definitions. On this last point, I think the
debate is currently filled with more heat than light, which is to say I think there could be more rigor in the attempt to demonstrate empirically that certain definitions (and the broader policies they are embodied in) deliver benefits that they are purported
to deliver, or at least raise questions about the same. We probably wont have a consensus on any particular definition, and I am not seeking to drive that. What I think is more important is to frame the policy questions that governments should be asking, as opposed
to just getting bogged down in a debate over definitions. I presented a paper in Berlin in September that started to set some of this out more formally, it’s located here
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1945252 Again, what I think our Member Section could contribute most here is related
to the last section, the questions that governments should ask about these policies. I’m happy to discuss more on the call, I’ll be about 5 minutes late due to logistics with an earlier meeting prior to this one. Regards Steve From: egov-ms@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:egov-ms@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of John Borras Please find attached the agenda and papers for our conference call next Monday. The dial-in numbers are at the end of the Agenda document. The main discussion point will be the future of the Member Section following our discussions in Ditton Manor last time and I have asked Laurent and Scott to join us for that agenda item. I’m expecting Steve to submit two papers for the discussions under Future Work.
Gershon – can you post the minutes of the last meeting please and confirm the agreed start time is 18.00 CET as I have it. Regards John Borras Chair OASIS eGOV MS Steering Committee m. +(0)44 7976 157745 Skype: gov3john |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]