Subject: [hrpc] more on open standards and ipr

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:05:08 +0200

Hi Niels and everyone,

Following the previous discussion I would propose a few changes:

>    Explanation: The Internet was able to developed into the global
>    network of networks because of the existence of open, non-proprietary
>    standards [Zittrain].  They are crucial for enabling
>    interoperability.  Yet, open standards are not explicitly defined
>    within the IETF.  

This would be considered news to most people at the IETF.  That doesn't
mean the IETF does ALL open standards but all IETF standards are as
close to open as any I know.  Indeed it's not clear that the focus here
should be the IETF, but rather more general.  There are two approaches
you could take to address this issue:

1.  Drop the sentence.  I think that generalizes the point.

2.  Replace the sentence with something more factually grounded, such as
the following:

"Organizations that espouse open standards philosophies may find
themselves entangled through normative references to closed standards or
proprietary approaches."

And then go on from there.

> On the subject, [RFC2606] states: Various national
>    and international standards bodies, such as ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-
>    T, develop a variety of protocol and service specifications that are
>    similar to Technical Specifications defined at the IETF.  National
>    and international groups also publish "implementors' agreements" that
>    are analogous to Applicability Statements, capturing a body of
>    implementation-specific detail concerned with the practical
>    application of their standards.  All of these are considered to be
>    "open external standards" for the purposes of the Internet Standards
>    Process.  Similarly, [RFC3935] does not define open standards but
>    does emphasize the importance of 'open process': any interested
>    person can participate in the work, know what is being decided, and
>    make his or her voice heard on the issue.  Part of this principle is
>    the IETF's commitment to making its documents, WG mailing lists,
>    attendance lists, and meeting minutes publicly available on the
>    Internet.

Again here you may wish to use the IETF as an examplar, but not make
this about the IETF.  By the way, OpenStand is probably worth considering.

Finally, I think it's useful to explain some of the complexity around
open standards.  This is not an easy subject.  There was an excellent
article by Steven Levy on the impact of normative references in
code.[1]  Some of us remember Carl Malamud, who used to participate in
the IETF.  This is a great read, and his cause is good.  But the IETF is
in a bit of a privileged spot: ISOC and ICANN foot our bills and those
of the W3C, at least in part.  That helps keep things open.  Other
standards organizations still have to pay the bills.  Some do that by
selling documents, others do it through membership fees as a price of
influence.  Traveling around the world to participate is also
expensive.  And so there are many aspects that limit openness.  At the
same time, openness tends to slow things down.  In a hot market, that's
death to a young company.

I would finally point out that open standards on the web is almost an
oxymoron.  Much of the communication to and from the browser is in
javascript, and apps on your phone are written generally to be
two-sided, such that there is NO standardization.  Should there be? 
What is the value to society and what human rights are at stake?  This
causes me to think a bit about the hourglass model and how we
standardize at its neck more so than elsewhere.

And this brings me back to an earlier point: if this draft is intended
to inform the discussion, let's insure we have captured these sorts of
complexities.  And then if there are clear recommendations to be made,
let's hear them.

>
>    Open standards are important as they allow for permissionless
>    innovation, which is important to maintain the freedom and ability to
>    freely create and deploy new protocols on top of the communications
>    constructs that currently exist.

While I like a good turn of phrase as much as the next person,  I
suggest that "permissionless innovation" is something of a marketing
term, and it goes undefined within the document.  If you are going to
use it, you should explain what it is and why it is important.

Eliot

[1]
https://backchannel.com/the-internets-own-instigator-cb6347e693b#.6wht8ih7b

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:29:56 +0200

Hi Elliot,

On 09/20/2016 10:05 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> close to open as any I know.  

This might be a language issue. What is meant is that there is no IETF
definition for what an 'open standard' is.

Indeed it's not clear that the focus here
> death to a young company.

Not sure if the ecnomic models of open standards are within the scope of
this document.

> What is the value to society and what human rights are at stake?  

I am not sure whether web standards fall within the scope of this draft.

> This

I think starting of with documenting the issues is already a great step,
actually.

> use it, you should explain what it is and why it is important.

We could add this definition to the glossary:

"Permissionless innovation," is the freedom to explore new technologies
or businesses without seeking prior approval.

from: Thierer, A. Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for
Comprehensive Technological Freedom. Mercatus Center at George Mason
University, 2014.

Best,

Niels

> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:08:16 +0200

Hi Niels (and sorry for so many "finally"s that were not in fact final ;-)

Summary:

I've the same problem as Andrew.  Is your target audience the IETF or
the broader community?  An answer to that question will help us in many
ways.

> Indeed it's not clear that the focus here

Well so this is the issue.  Is this draft intended to address just the
IETF or be more broadly applicable?  If you want it to be more broadly
applicable the trick here is to use the IETF or other SDOs as examples. 
Remember, we're here in the iRtf and we don't need to focus on the
IETF.  Choose wisely ;-)

> Not sure if the ecnomic models of open standards are within the scope of

I'm sympathetic to the idea of not wildly expanding the scope of this
document or research group to go beyond human rights.  But I think this
hangs on the notion of whether permissionless innovation is a human
right, and then whether open standards are required for permissionless
innovation.  Carl's work, and the quote from Justice Breyer, get to the
heart of the risks of normative references by laws themselves.  In this
sense, the IETF is just about ideal for a reference, not that most of us
would encourage any such references (what happens if we update an RFC,
for example).  And so again: it depends on your intended purpose.  If it
is to inform society about the relationship between standards and human
rights, the I would say there is a relationship.  If your intent is to
improve IETF processes through an informational document within the
context of the IRTF, then I would say it is possible to scope down.  But
that does limit the applicability of your work.  Again, choose wisely.

> I am not sure whether web standards fall within the scope of this draft.

See above.  If you are strictly focused on the IETF, I guess you're
right, but I would claim that then this is a missed opportunity.
> I think starting of with documenting the issues is already a great step,

Ok.  How much depends on the answer to the question at the top of this
email, right?

> Comprehensive Technological Freedom. Mercatus Center at George Mason

That is as good as any, but then I would say there should be some
discussion as to its relationship to human rights.  And that in itself
will also inform you as to how much of the open standards discussion
should be captured.

Eliot

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:02:37 -0400

> definition for what an 'open standard' is.

This gap is not quite an accident, though, and I think that may be
part of the reason you're hearing some anxiety about the target
audience for this document.  

And given that this is an RG inside the IRTF, I don't understand why
an IETF consensus about what an open standard is would matter anyway.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:49:48 +0200

Short answer: IETF community.

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9