Definitions of “open standards”

I thought I’d throw up a quick post that compiles the material I reviewed in preparation for the session of my course focused on the issue of “open standards.” This is not an issue I’d looked at in depth before, and I’m certain my review was not comprehensive, but nonetheless I hope this might be of use to others looking at the topic.

My sense is that definitions of open standards fall into three broad categories: (a) the traditional model, (b) the open source-centric model, and (c) the A2K model.  (I’m just making up these names; perhaps there are better terms.)

Traditional model

Key features of the traditional model are (a) procedural access and due process, (b) RAND IPR licensing terms, and (c) the ability of SDOs to charge fees for standards.   While this approach has been fiercely criticized by advocates of alternative models, it’s worth noting that a large majority of formal SDOs operate under this model and consider their output to be “open standards.”  Subject to some nuanced variations, the material identified below either describes or advocates for the traditional model:

• The ITU-T definition of open standards
• ANSI’s Critical Issue Paper (.doc – yes, irony noted)
• Global Standards Collaboration (GSC) position statement (.doc)
• Nicos L. Tsilas, The Threat to Innovation, Interoperability, and Government Procurement Options From Recently Proposed Definitions of “Open Standards,” 10 Int’l J. Comm. L. & Pol’y 8 (2005)  (.pdf)

• It doesn’t fit precisely in this category, but I’ll also include Ken Kretchmer’s Open Standards Requirements paper here. (.pdf)

Open source-centric model

Michael Tiemann summarizes this approach in a straightforward manner: “if [a] standard [can]not be implemented fully and faithfully in Open Source, the standard should never be declared nor considered open.”  The key feature of the open source-centric model is royalty-free (RF)  access to, and RF implementation of, the standard.  Proponents also focus on procedural access and fairness in the standards development process.  Examples include:

• IDABC’s European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Version 1.0 (.pdf)
• OSI’s Open Standards Requirement
• Bruce Perens’ Open Standards: Principles and Practice
• Larry Rosen’s paper Defining Open Standards (.pdf)

The A2K model

The third model draws from the principles of the Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement.  This model focuses on procedural openness, inclusivity and transparency, with an emphasis on associated global political and public policy benefits.  Additionally the model turns the innovation argument of the traditional model (which emphasizes the pro-innovative aspects of patents) on its head, and suggests that RF implementations of foundational standards enable greater economic growth and innovation.   The A2K model embodies a more nuanced approach to IPR than the open source model, however, expressing a RF preference but also recognizing RAND options.  Examples of material that I include in this A2K model category include:

• Laura DeNardis, Open Standards and Global Politics, 2009 Int’l J. Comm. L. & Pol’y 168 (.pdf)
• Rishab Ghosh, An Economic Basis for Open Standards (.pdf)
• Laura DeNardis and Eric Tam, Open Documents and Democracy: A Political Basis for Open Document Standards (November 1, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1028073