From @p3.lucy.isoc.org:amr@linus.isoc.org Sun Jul 9 16:30:57 1995 Received: from linus.isoc.org by icarus.lis.pitt.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA03826; Sun, 9 Jul 95 16:30:57 EDT Received: from p3.lucy.isoc.org by linus.isoc.org id aa26598; 9 Jul 95 16:28 EDT X-Sender: amr@198.6.250.10 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 09 Jul 1995 16:27:35 -0400 To: Michael Spring From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: Copy of the Latest Draft Cc: loughry@cup.hp.com, oksala@po3.bb.unisys.com, lgarcia@ota.gov, odonnell@edinboro.edu Message-Id: <9507091628.aa26598@linus.isoc.org> X-IMAPbase: 1249813036 1 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 Michael, Have a couple of observations. I'm connected via dialup Internet Service Provider on the remote island of Kauai Hawaii. We had our annual international conference on the adjoining island of Ouhu. It really attests to the growing universality of Internet service. > Rutkowski continues with some criticism of the nature of the > large bureaucracies which have developed at the international > level and opts to focus on marketplace and "industry > constellations" as the appropriate venues for deciding which > standards to use. I would also add that those same organizations have been tended to view themselves as the sole judge of what constitutes an official International Standards Development body, or what is an appropriate development process - even asserting a role in certifying acceptability of other bodies. This is rather patently self-serving; but more seriously, has the unfortunate adverse effects of locking these organizations into inflexible positions and impeding more effective cooperation among other different bodies who don't meet their criteria. It's an effect that I've described as "the arrogance of standards oligopolies." > I am not at all disturbed by the notion of an > oligopoly. In fact I would say that the fewer top level > organizations the better, because that's how we can > reduce duplication and expense. > I think we should generally be disturbed by oligopolies - and justify their existence only where really necessary. It's not clear the case has been made that in today's highly dynamic and highly competitive information systems field that they are necessary. Indeed, it's been pretty obvious that they are counterproductive. > > 3.1 New Questions > Have you discussed what kinds of standards these new questions are directed toward? The answers would seem to vary dramatically as a function of the type of standards. > We began by posing and addressed seven questions. They were > > 1. How should committees be composed? > > 2. Who should decide what standards should be developed? > > 3. What are the critical aspects of the standardization process? > > 4. What is the most important characteristic of a standard? > > 5. What needs to be fixed most urgently? > > 6. What practice is most damaging to standardization? > > 7. Who should take responsibility for moving forward? It's not clear there are simple answers to these questions. They are a function of the purpose and type of the organization, the marketplace, and the intended products. Indeed - while all these questions are good ones - the answers and the interrelations are so complex that I would argue they defy articulation. I think you have made the case for a competitive marketplace among standards development organizations as the only possible way of managing such complexity. It rather reminds me of an interview some years ago with a well-known economist who reflected on the hopelessness of Soviets managing their economy. He said "I can barely balance my checkbook, how could any group of people sit together and manage the economy of an entire country." It seems to me you have a similar situation here in dealing with IT standards. By the way, during the many years I was at the FCC, we wrestled with these questions at length, and always came out with a minimalist, hands-off approach. Indeed, the spec for the RJ-11 connector interface to the telephone network is the only real telecom (as opposed to radio) standard in the entire set of FCC Regulations. And even that single standard was written solely to effect immediate competition in telephone terminal equipment. It was a wise policy then. It is wise policy now. --tony