23-04-18

Fora and ConsortiaFora and ConsortiaA Challenge for Recognized A Challenge for Recognized

Standards Bodies?Standards Bodies?

Karl Heinz Rosenbrock

ETSI Director-General

1 GSC-9, Seoul

SOURCE: ETSI

TITLE: Fora and Consortia

AGENDA ITEM: Joint 4.6

CONTACT: Karl Heinz Rosenbrock

GSC9/Joint_014

GSC-9, Seoul

AgendaAgenda

- Categories of Fora and Consortia

- Market overview and key challenges

- Positioning of Fora and Consortia

- SWOT Analysis and Conclusions

GSC-9, Seoul

OverviewCategories of Fora and Consortia

SCOPE DISTINCTION:• Fora and consortia – requirements providers• Fora and consortia – specifications providers

STRATEGY DISTINCTION:• Complementing SDOs – thus reaching synergy

• Market Representers and needs identifiers• Promoters• Implementers with feedbacks

• Addressing new market opportunities – not yet addressed by SDOs• PAS Providers - Competing with SDOs

• Let’s seek collaboration! To gain Synergy…

GSC-9, Seoul

There is a process-based Synergy There is a process-based Synergy between some Fora/Consortia & SDOsbetween some Fora/Consortia & SDOs

IMPLEMENTATIONFORUM: MARKET NEEDS

SDO: STANDARDDEVELOPMENTMAINTENANCE

PROMOTION

1 2

34

5 6

ETSI FORAwatch: http://www.etsi.org/forawatch/

GSC-9, Seoul

Status YesterdayStatus YesterdayRecognized Standards OrganizationsRecognized Standards Organizations

For almost 100 years, national and international SDOs have developed voluntary, consensus-based standards

AREA INTER- NATIONAL

REGIONAL (EUROPE)

NATIONAL (GERMANY)

GENERAL ISO CEN DIN

Electrotechnic IEC CENELEC DKE

TELECOMM. ITU ETSI TBETSI

GSC-9, Seoul

Status TodayStatus TodayChallenges of Market-Driven StandardizationChallenges of Market-Driven Standardization

• Market-driven standardization in SDOs

• Fora and consortia are often seen as the best practice standardization organizations:– Fora/consortia have the ability to keep pace with rapid market

changes– SDOs need extra time to achieve thoughtful consensus necessary

for the wide market acceptance of developed standards

• Fora/consortia are a growing challenge and achieving significant success in providing standardization services to the same markets and technologies that the SDOs address

GSC-9, Seoul

SDOs (ESOs): Strengths/WeaknessesSDOs (ESOs): Strengths/WeaknessesExpanding standardization creates new Expanding standardization creates new

challengeschallengesStrengths• Existing procedures and well-trained staff • Multinational responsibility• Develop very wide consensus• High brand image• Synergies, one stop shopping• Recognition by EU and EFTA

Weaknesses• Perceived dependency on EC for ESOs• Financial model• Missing lobby and strategic “ambassadors”

GSC-9, Seoul

SDOs: Opportunities/ThreatsSDOs: Opportunities/ThreatsHigh need for reviewing basic principlesHigh need for reviewing basic principles

Opportunities• Need to allow integration of research/academic input possibly through

new membership status• Collaboration agreements between SDOs and fora/consortia facilitate

overcoming the time-to-market challenge• Testing to ensure interoperability became key to market• The pendulum (owing to lack of money) may now move into our camp• Go for global standards• Co-operation with research and academic bodies

Threats• The funding source remains one of the most significant difference

between fora/consortia and SDOs• Lack of CEO awareness• Difficulty in identifying market gaps and needs

GSC-9, Seoul

SWOT Analysis - Fora/Consortia (1)SWOT Analysis - Fora/Consortia (1) STRENGHTS• Time to market! • Flexibility!• Market orientation/focus• Attractiveness!• No bureaucracy!• Marketing!!!• Global efficiency!!!• Focused funding• Challenge to SDOs - to some extent• Keep pace with rapid market changes and user requirements• Frequent start-ups with narrow focus• Don’t bother about consensus – “closed clubs approach”

GSC-9, Seoul

SWOT Analysis - Fora/Consortia (2)SWOT Analysis - Fora/Consortia (2)

WEAKNESSES

• Lack of test specifications• Lack of Interoperability testing• Lack of maintenance of deliverables• Need of administrative structure - similar to SDOs• No synergies• Consensus?• Openness?• Democratic or due process?• Superficial approach! • Costs – need of administrative/maintenance support• Coordination/control from Members difficult

GSC-9, Seoul

SWOT Analysis - Fora/Consortia (3)SWOT Analysis - Fora/Consortia (3)

OPPORTUNITIES• High degree of common market interests• Competitiveness• Deliver “what the market wants”• Oligopoly (instead of monopoly)• Co-operation with SDOs and get involved in SDOs business

THREATS• Visibility targets mainly/only the specifications’ users• Only pushers, no preventers• Lack of coordination/synergy• Costs (for the members)

GSC-9, Seoul

Status Tomorrow – Quo Vadis SDOs?Status Tomorrow – Quo Vadis SDOs?Rise of the expanding Standardization effortsRise of the expanding Standardization efforts

• The process of fora and consortia recognition by an accredited SDO may effectively create a new class of organization: a Market Recognized SDO (MRSDO):– The enormous success of the Internet

has resulted in the recognition of the IETF– Consortia recognized by SDOs

have often been successful

• Along with fora and consortia, the rise of the expanding standardization efforts fundamentally represent new challenges to SDOs

• Fora and consortia often require that each Member accepts an IPR agreement as a condition of participation. This is a significant “closed-club” advantage over the SDOs' process where identification of IPR is required, but IPR negotiation is not foreseen within the SDOs