co-board

co-board@lists.fsfe.org

128 discussions

Re: CO ADMIN ACCESS - urgent
by Shane Martin Coughlan 20 Nov '07

20 Nov '07

Shane Martin Coughlan wrote: > Rod Norman wrote: >> To access, login as usual and you will find a 'Certify products' tab >> where the outstanding products requiring certification will be listed. >> After opening an outstanding product you can check the Submit button to >> formally certify the product. The product will then be available in the >> search pages through the following url as these are not currently >> visible to users (www.certifiedopen.com/co_search_product >> <http://www.certifiedopen.com/co_search_product>) > > Rod, thank you. > Now, we need to work together on processing requests coming through the > database. Both you and I need to sign-off on each request. We will > need to communicate via email to do that right now I guess. > I logged into the database right now and I notice there is one pending item. > Enterprise Metasearch 3.0 > Is this one of ours or has it been created by a third party? Rob, I got no reply from you on this issue and it's now four days old. If this is an external submission we need to make a decision on it ASAP. Shane -- Shane Coughlan FTF Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406 coughlan(a)fsfeurope.org Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org

1 0

Breaking Down Digital Barriers - International Study Examines Interoperability
by Shane Martin Coughlan 16 Nov '07

16 Nov '07

Please find below a research programme sponsored by Microsoft that we will have to engage with over the coming months. In essence is says that interoperability needs to be driven by the private sector and that it means different things in different contexts. I believe this research will be quietly used to suggest that government involvement in driving interoperability should be minimal (a standard Microsoft line) and that a contextual approach to interoperability suggests that complete interoperability is not possible in all situations. Sentences like "The goal is not interoperability per se, but rather something to which interoperability can lead, such as innovation or consumer choice." should be viewed with extreme suspicion. My opinion as a political scientist and linguist is that this is nonsense dressed up in vague terms. From: [1]pmckiernan(a)cyber.law.harvard.edu To: [2]press-report-list(a)eon.law.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:21:06 -0500 Subject: RELEASE: Breaking Down Digital Barriers - International Study Examines Interoperability PRESS RELEASE Contact: Patrick McKiernan FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (617) 384-9100 November 14, 2007 [3]pmckiernan(a)cyber.law.havard.edu Breaking Down Digital Barriers: International Study Examines the Issue of Interoperability Innovation, consumer choice and competition most important considerations Private sector well-suited to lead interoperability efforts WASHINGTON, DC -- The findings of an international study released today researchers from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and the Research Center for Information Law, University of St. Gallen indicate that private sector leadership, more so than government intervention, is the optimal method for ensuring that technologies work well together and innovation flourishes. The authors of "Breaking Down Digital Barriers: When and How ICT Interoperability Drives Innovation" found that interoperability is generally good for consumers and drives innovation, but determined that there is no "silver bullet" solution to the issue. Interoperability has increasingly become more important because computer users -- whether they be consumers, businesses, or governments -- now tend to obtain hardware and software from different vendors and expect everything to work together. One approach to the issue that has received attention advocates government-mandated adoption of specific technologies to compel interoperability. This study suggests that such approaches are unlikely to be the optimal approach to interoperability. "Interoperability leads to innovation and many benefits for consumers," said co-principal investigator John Palfrey, Executive Director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. "The case studies we investigated produced clear conclusions: The ICT industry is achieving considerable interoperability every day in response to the needs of customers. There is often more than one way to achieve interoperability. Market-driven initiatives tend to provide the most long-term promise." "This research demonstrates that there is no standard application to achieve ICT interoperability," said Urs Gasser, co-principal investigator and Director of the Research Center for Information Law. "Attempting to impose universal answers can produce unintended consequences such as curtailing innovation, limiting consumer choice and reducing competition. Instead, each situation needs to be analyzed on its own, to determine the best way to achieve interoperability. Nor can we forget that interoperability is simply a means to larger and more important goals, such as consumer choice, access to content, ease of use and diversity." The key findings The research focused on three case studies in which the issues of interoperability and innovation are uppermost: digital rights management in online and offline music distribution models; various models of digital identity systems (how computing systems identify users to provide the correct level of access and security); and web services (in which computer applications or programs connect with each other over the Internet to provide specific services to customers). The core finding is that "increased levels of ICT interoperability generally foster innovation. But interoperability also contributes to other socially desirable outcomes. In our three case studies, we have studied its positive impact on consumer choice, ease of use, access to content, and diversity, among other things." The investigation reached other, more nuanced conclusions: * Interoperability does not mean the same thing in every context and as such, is not always good for everyone all the time. For example, if one wants completely secure software, then that software should probably have limited interoperability. In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all way to achieve interoperability in the ICT context. * Interoperability can be achieved by multiple means including the licensing of intellectual property, product design, collaboration with partners, development of standards and governmental intervention. The easiest way to make a product from one company work well with a product from another company, for instance, may be for the companies to cross license their technologies. But in a different situation, another approach (collaboration or open standards) may be more effective and efficient. * The best path to interoperability depends greatly upon context and which subsidiary goals matter most, such as prompting further innovation, providing consumer choice or ease of use, and the spurring of competition in the field. * The private sector generally should lead interoperability efforts. The public sector should stand by either to lend a supportive hand or to determine if its involvement is warranted. Recommendations The authors of the study propose a process constructed around a set of guidelines to help businesses and governments determine the best way to achieve interoperability in a given situation. This approach may have policy implications for governments. * Identify what the actual end goal or goals are. The goal is not interoperability per se, but rather something to which interoperability can lead, such as innovation or consumer choice. * Consider the facts of the situation. The key variables that should be considered include time, maturity of the relevant technologies and markets and user practices and norms. * In light of these goals and facts of the situation, consider possible options against the benchmarks proposed by the study: effectiveness, efficiency and flexibility. * Remain open to the possibility of one or more approaches to interoperability, which may also be combined with one another to accomplish interoperability that drives innovation. * In some instances, it may be possible to convene all relevant stakeholders to participate in a collaborative, open standards process. In other instances, the relevant facts may suggest that a single firm can drive innovation by offering to others the chance to collaborate through an open API, such as Facebook?s recent success in permitting third-party applications to run on its platform. But long-term sustainability may be an issue where a single firm makes an open API available according to a contract that it can change at any time. * In the vast majority of cases, the private sector can and does accomplish a high level of interoperability on its own. The state may help by playing a convening role, or even in mandating a standard on which there is widespread agreement within industry after a collaborative process. The state may need to play a role after the fact to ensure that market actors do not abuse their positions. The report and case studies can be downloaded at [4]http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interop. The research was sponsored by Microsoft Corporation. ### The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is proud to celebrate its tenth year as a research program founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and help pioneer its development. Founded in 1997, through a generous gift from Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman, the Center is now home to an ever-growing community of faculty, fellows, staff, and affiliates working on projects that span the broad range of intersections between cyberspace, technology, and society. More information can be found at [5]http://cyber.law.harvard.edu. The Research Center for Information Law, FIR-HSG, was established in 2000 by University of St. Gallen professors Jean Nicolas Druey, Herbert Burkert, and Rainer J. Schweizer. The research initiatives of the Center are aimed at analyzing and assessing legal frameworks and provisions that are regulating the creation, distribution, access, and usage of information in a given social subsystem such as the economic, cultural or political system; exploring the dynamic changes in information technologies and their impacts on the legal system. More information can be found at [6]http://www.fir.unisg.ch/. **** To change your Berkman Center subscriptions, visit the following url: [7]http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/signup References 1. mailto:pmckiernan@cyber.law.harvard.edu 2. mailto:press-report-list@eon.law.harvard.edu 3. mailto:pmckiernan@cyber.law.havard.edu 4. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interop 5. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ 6. http://www.fir.unisg.ch/ 7. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/signup

1 1

CO Next question
by bob blatchford 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

All We now have our first trial customer who has put up a product. This is now awaiting confirmation of certification from CO. What should the process be during the trial period: a) automatically certify with a note to submitter stating that all products will be reviewed before going live (remember the products will not be able to be viewed by anyone else) b) setup panel immediately to review each submission before certification is authorised (will delay peoples ability to see there certified products c) Any other ideas? It does raise a question regarding the database search not being available during the trial. If you are a casual browser you read about the trial but can't see any visible evidence that the trial is underway. I think we are missing an opportunity to better demonstrate what we are doing, I will investigate the possibility of CO authorising certain products that can be displayed during the trial period to allow a better assessment to be made of the service.

4 3

re signup wording
by bob blatchford 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

All During our call re dealing with new CO signups we agreed to add some wording to define status of trial. Below is first draft., "This is the testing phase of CO, during this phase the test product submissions will not be available to the public. The intention is provide you during this phase an opportunity for interaction and feedback in a risk free environment. No test data will automatically be passed through to the live environment Before going live you will be asked to sign up to the CO programme terms and conditions then resubmit products for formal certification." I will also setup a certification process such that Rod and Shane will review the product submissions and give appropriate feedback to submitters. Bob

1 0

[heise.de] Offene Standards, .NET/OOXML und das Internet
by Georg C. F. Greve 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

FYI. Direct result of my media work with Thomas Vinje here in Rio. Regards, Georg [ http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/98971 ] Offene Standards, .NET/OOXML und das Internet Eine Warnung gegenüber der zunehmenden Abhängigkeit von Internetapplikationen von Microsofts .NET und eine Aufforderung an Regierungen, eine neue Wettbewerbsbeschwerde gegen Microsoft zu unterstützen, legte Thomas Vinje, Anwalt bei Clifford Chance und Vertreter des European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) dem Internet Governance Forum (IGF), der UN in Rio de Janeiro vor. "Die brasilianische Regierung könnte verschiedene Dinge tun," regte Vinje an. Sie könne den Brüsseler Wettbewerbshütern gegenüber erklären, dass sie die Klagen unterstützt. Sie könne andererseits, wie Korea, auch ein eigenes Wettbewerbsverfahren gegen den Softwareriesen aus Redmond anstrengen. "Wettbewerbsbehörden lieben Gesellschaft", sagte Vinje bei einer Pressekonferenz auf dem IGF. Microsofts Weigerung, Wettbewerber in den Stand zu versetzen, ihre Webapplikationen außerhalb von .NET zu schreiben, nannte Vinje in Rio "einen Versuch, das Internet proprietär zu machen", und damit ein Thema von großer Relevanz für das IGF. Die Strategie von Microsofts sei die gleiche wie beim ersten Microsoft-Fall, den das Unternehmen vor Gericht verloren hatte. Im laufenden Verfahren, dem sich die Kommission laut Vinje jetzt intensiv widme, hatte ECIS neben der nicht offengelegten Verknüpfung von .NET und Microsoft-Servern ähnliche Barrieren für Office und E-Mail-Anwendungen beklagt. Einer Anwaltskanzlei wie seiner sei es aktuell so nicht möglich, das Open-Source-Officepaket OpenOffice einzusetzen, da der Austausch der Dokumente mit Partnern nicht völlig zuverlässig sei. Zwei Aspekte beurteilen die Microsoft-Gegner als ihrem Verfahren zuträglich: Habe die Kommission 1993 bei den ersten Untersuchungen noch über zu wenig Fachleute und Know-how verfügt, sei sie, gestählt aus dem ersten Verfahren, inzwischen eine "mächtige juristische Waffe". Etwa ein halbes Dutzend Experten kümmerten sich jetzt um das neue Verfahren. Den zweiten Vorteil sieht Vinje darin, dass man einen Präzedenzfall habe. Dessen Grundsätze seien übertragbar auf das neue Verfahren. Dennoch warnt er davor, dass Microsoft bei einer langen Verfahrensdauer seine Marktmacht weiter ausbauen werde. Sollte es Microsoft gelingen, die Standardisierung vom hauseigenen Dokumentenformat OOXML bei der ISO entgegen der ersten Ablehnung doch noch durchzusetzen, mache das zwar keinen grundsätzlichen Unterschied für das Wettbewerbsverfahren, meint Vinje. Ein bisschen schwerer werde die Argumentation allerdings schon. Vor der ISO hatten Microsoft im September sechs Stimmen von Regierungsvertretern gefehlt. Das IGF-Treffen eignet sich prächtig für beide Seiten, mit zahlreichen Regierungsvertretern zu sprechen; Microsoft etwa ist mit einem halben Dutzend Mitarbeiter beim IGF vertreten. "Microsoft versucht, möglichst viele Nein- in Ja-Stimmen zu verwandeln, und wir machen es umgekehrt", sagte Georg Greve, Präsident der Free Software Foundation Europe. Bei der Entscheidung kann es eng werden, meint Vinje. Das Verfahren offenbare auch gewisse Schwächen des ISO-Standardisierungsprozesses, meinen die Experten. "Das ISO-Verfahren ist auf den Konsens zu technischen Standards ausgerichtet, für Konfliktfälle wie diesen gibt es keine Regeln", meint Greve. Aufklärungsarbeit für Offene Standards und deren Vorzüge, gerade auch für Entwicklungsländer, hat sich die dynamische Koalition "Offene Standards" beim IGF auf die Fahnen geschrieben. In den "Dynamic Coalitions" des IGF sind jeweils, auf freiwilliger Basis, alle drei Gruppen von Betroffenen (neudeutsch Stakeholdergruppen genannt) vertreten – Regierungen, Privatwirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft. Zu den Mitgliedern der Koalition "Offene Standards" gehören Organisationen wie die FSFE und Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), aber auch Unternehmen wie Sun. "Technische Standards sind unsichtbar, sie sind wie eine unsichtbare Regulierung, ein Schattenregime", sagte Susan Struble, für Sun Microsystems eine der Organisatorinnen der dynamischen Koalition. Vielen Regierungen sei nicht bewusst, dass es nicht nur zwei oder drei große Standardisierungsorganisationen gebe, sondern hunderte kleiner Industriekonsortien, führte Struble weiter aus. Ein Teilnehmer aus Südafrika hatte so etwa mit Blick auf das Verfahren von Microsoft bei der ISO gesagt, dass der Streit in seinem Land praktisch unbekannt sei. Sowohl im ersten Jahr des Bestehens der Koalition als auch im kommenden Jahr steht nach Strubles Auffassung die Aufklärungsarbeit im Vordergrund. Mit der Aufmerksamkeit in Rio ist man ziemlich zufrieden und verweist auf drei gut besuchte Workshops. In einem stritt man sich ausführlich mit der Microsoft-Mannschaft. Beim Weltgipfel der Informationsgesellschaft (WSIS) hatten es die Vertreter von Open Standards noch schwer, überhaupt auf die Agenda zu kommen. Auf eine Reihe anderer Fortschritte im vergangenen Jahr verwies KEI-Vertreter Thiru Balasubramaniam. Die Aufnahme einer entwicklungspolitischen Agenda bei der World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) mache auch dort offene Standards zu einem Thema. Andererseits seien Vorschläge zu einer Patentharmonisierung in der WIPO gescheitert und das Patent- und Standardkomitee sei nun gehalten, in einem Bericht die Kosten des Patentsystems, auch unter dem Blick möglicher negativer Effekte für Entwicklungsländer, zu beziffern. Einen praktischen Schritt nach vorne vermeldete in Rio die FSFE. Sie hat mit Certified Open (certifiedopen.com) ein Angebot geschaffen, online seine Produkte zu zertifizieren. Damit werde etwa für öffentliche Einrichtungen eine Überprüfung möglich, ob ein bestimmtes Produkt Offene Standards einhalte. Für nichtkommerzielle Anbieter ist die Zertifizierung kostenlos, kommerzielle bezahlen 400 Euro. Die Zertifizierung beruht auf einer Selbsteinschätzung, allerdings werden die in einem Fragebogen gemachten Angaben zur Offenheit veröffentlicht und können von Dritten angefochten werden, sollten sie nicht stimmen. Noch sei man im Test, betonte Greve. Bis Ende Januar sind daher alle Zertifizierungen kostenlos. -- Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org> Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org) Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! (http://www.fsfe.org) What everyone should know about DRM (http://DRM.info)

1 0

CO enquiries
by bob blatchford 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

All We have not put a process in place to deal with CO enquiries. Can we discuss at next conference call? Attached are first two received. Who wants to address these two? Regards Bob

3 4

First feedback to Certified Open @ the Bolin Group Standards Edge Conference
by Georg C. F. Greve 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

Hi all, today I moderated the first panel at the standards edge conference here in Rio prior to the Internet Governance Forum. The topic Certified Open came up a couple of times along the day, and the 40 leaflets I put on the table were gone by the end of the day. I assume that Benoit Müller of the BSA and Nicos L. Tsilas, Senior Director IP & Interoperability Policy, Government and Industry Affairs at Microsoft both took one. Generally the feedback was very positive, in particular Laura DeNardis From Yale Law School also was quite interested, as she's working in the field of standards policy. Overall reception was very positive, though. The only disconcerting feedback was from Carl F. Cargill, Director of Corporate Standards at Sun Microsystems. He was generally in favor, but said that we're likely to be taken down by legal action and that it took him about 100k EUR to figure out the problem. He described it as one related to burden of proof issues which are on Certified Open when if we were being sued by a vendor for having caused damage to their product sales by giving biased evaluation or having had a biased certification -- and it would be on us to prove that there was no bias. Carl described the issue as US centric, but it seems we should have a look at this and potentially seek legal input on the issue. Regards, Georg -- Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org> Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org) Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! (http://www.fsfe.org) What everyone should know about DRM (http://DRM.info)

2 2

Re: Certified Open Press Release
by Graham Taylor 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

J, three changes - Inserted the reg mark after first mention of CO - a typo in OS Summit, and updated the boiler plate. G ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jennifer Webber" <jw(a)chelgate.com> To: <graham(a)openforumeurope.org> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 4:52 PM Subject: FW: Certified Open Press Release -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Webber [mailto:jw@chelgate.com] Sent: 08 November 2007 15:30 To: coughlan(a)fsfeurope.org Cc: pr(a)fsfeurope.org; Sachiko Muto Subject: RE: Certified Open Press Release Dear all, Please see final version for checking. Shane - Please would you mind forwarding to the Board as I don't have permission to send to that address. Can I have any comments in the next hour, as Graham leaves at 5pm and he will need to see final version. Best, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Shane Martin Coughlan [mailto:coughlan@fsfeurope.org] Sent: 07 November 2007 23:15 To: board(a)certifiedopen.com Cc: Jennifer Webber; pr(a)fsfeurope.org; Sachiko Muto Subject: Re: Certified Open Press Release I made some minor changes to the FSFE boilerplate text and the contact information. Regards Shane -- Shane Coughlan FTF Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406 coughlan(a)fsfeurope.org Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org -- If this email is spam, report it here: http://www.onlymyemail.com/view/?action=reportSpam&Id=NjcyOTQ6NDQ2NDkyMDg0O… -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.24/1117 - Release Date: 07/11/2007 22:52

3 2

Gov Council
by Graham Taylor 09 Nov '07

09 Nov '07

As promised I attach a draft acceptance letter to go to those who agree to join the Council. In case of AC and KDe should go from Georg I suggest. In terms of letter inviting them to join I suggest the original general invite letter I produced provides the basics. Comments? rgds G

2 1

Certified Open Press Release, first draft
by Georg C. F. Greve 08 Nov '07

08 Nov '07

Hi all, please find attached below the draft for the initial Certified Open press release with edits by Shane and myself. Further comments are quite welcome. How does our timing look right now? Regards, Georg -- Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org> Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org) Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! (http://www.fsfe.org) What everyone should know about DRM (http://DRM.info)

4 7

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

co-board