Global Standards Collaboration 9, Seoul, Korea Amy Marasco, ANSI Vice President

1. Global Standards Collaboration 9, Seoul, Korea Amy Marasco, ANSI Vice President and General Counsel

2. Fora and Consortia • Many types of Fora/Consortia • Some are for R&D and other purposes • From a standardization perspective, they can be generally grouped into three types of activities, some do 1, 2, or all 3 types of activities: • Pre-standardization (Type R), efforts to identify Requirements to be standardized or aggregated market Requirements • Standards/Specification writers (Type S), most direct overlap to traditional SDOs • Technology/Standards Promotion (Type P) • Large amount of Corporate Resources directed to fora/consortia • Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Sector has spawned the most fora/consortia • Has been a High Interest Subject (HIS) for discussions at Global Standards Collaboration (GSC) for many years • ANSI has a Fora/Consortia Group under its National Policy Committee

3. ANSI Involvement with Fora/Consortia • ANSI has been involved with fora/consortia for some time as additional bodies involved in standardization and specification writing • Fora/consortia are mentioned in the ANSI National Standards Strategy (NSS) and ANSI has other activities related to fora/consortia • The points in this presentation were shared with European Standards Organizations (ESOs) during an ANSI/ESO meeting in January 2004 and is being shared with the other participants in GSC

4. Fora and Consortia • Many types of Fora/Consortia • Those which are pre-standardization (Type R), have efforts to identify Requirements to be standardized or aggregated market Requirements • Type R can complement standardization, could also be a Trade Association generating a Standards Requirements Document (SRD), a Market Representation Partner (MRP) providing aggregated market requirements to SDOs, or other inputs to a traditional SDO • Complementary to SDOs • Technology/Standards Promotion (Type P) • Those which are implementers of standards, promoters of standards, and educate the market about the technology and its advantages • Also complementary to SDOS

5. Why spend resources on fora/consortia? • Type S fora/consortia generate Specifications and, thus, overlap with SDOs • Often directed to international activity, not national or regional-focused • Claim ISO/IEC/ITU are too slow or to compete with them • Want to be viewed as international • May not want to include all interested parties • May not want ITU/IEC/ISO/ETSI/ANSI/TIA-type IPR policies to license RAND • Participants want financial contributions focused on just a specific project / technology and not funding other activities • Perception that work can get done faster than traditional SDOs • May also want to Promote Technology post standardization via Trade Shows/Conferences, the types of things not done by SDOs, thus, do both S and P functions(and may have done R)

6. Why spend resources on fora/consortia? • Type S participants want an international activity, not national or regional-focused • More importantly, they seek a commitment upfront to “support technology/standard” and implement it • Keeps “anti” standard competitors out of the process, as such companies can slow down or block consensus in traditional SDOs • Often not the standards personnel at a company but product management, with a drive to get the product out the door • May turn maintenance for standards/specifications over to an SDO later, after documents/technology/equipment mature

7. ANSI Activities • National Standards Strategy • 4. Broaden the U.S. standards “umbrella” to include all those organizations that are contributing to the standards system • Standards in the U.S. are developed by a variety of organizations ranging from those accredited by ANSI to special purpose industry consortia. This diversity is welcomed the U.S. sees no need to force everyone into a single mold, and applauds the benefits that result. The U.S. process will be further strengthened when the talents of all these organizations are directed toward common objectives. As newer organizations develop their specifications, their work becomes the basis for action by the formal process when that adds value. Further linkages between these different types of organizations can therefore result in better standards. Tactical initiatives include:

8. ANSI Activities • National Standards Strategy ·Standards developers should review their own operations to see if alternative processes such as those provided by leading U.S. standards developers to support non-traditional standards groups would further strengthen standardization in their sectors; ·ANSI should review its accreditation process to ensure that it adds value, and investigate its applicability to broader constituencies; ·U.S. Government should encourage more use of the principles embodied in accreditation by recognizing the ANSI process as providing sufficient evidence that American National Standards (ANS) meet federal criteria for voluntary consensus standards;

9. ANSI Activities • National Standards Strategy ·Non-traditional standards organizations should review their objectives to determine where closer interaction with the formal system will help add value to their efforts; ·Industry should review its activities in all standards developers to improve the overall effectiveness of standardization.

10. ANSI Outreach • Ad Hoc Group formed under National Policy Committee (NPC) • Reviewed literature/other activities • Surveys to Fora/Consortia • Meetings with Fora/Consortia for information exchange • ANSI Planning Panels include non-ANSI members • IISP • HSSP • On-going Process • Continuing Information Exchanges • The Standards “Ladder”

11. Thank you! • Questions?