Iec Ieee Challenge 2012 LR

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012
How does
electrotechnology impact economic,
social and environmental
development?
Winning papers from

the IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012
Jury Member
IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012 1

®
How does
electrotechnology impact economic,
social and environmental
development?
Winning papers from

the IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012
Jury Member
About the IEC
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) is the world’s leading organization that prepares and
publishes International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies and administers
Conformity Assessment Systems that certify that components, equipment and systems conform to them.
The IEC brings together 163 countries, and nearly 13 000 experts cooperate on the global IEC platform
to ensure that products work everywhere safely with each other. IEC work enables global value chains;
allows industry and companies of all sizes to access global markets faster and at less cost, and permits
nations to better protect their citizens.
IEC work covers a vast range of technologies: power generation (including all renewable energy sources),
transmission, distribution, Smart Grid, batteries, home appliances, office and medical equipment, all
public and private transportation, semiconductors, fibre optics, nanotechnology, multimedia, information
technology, and more. It also addresses safety, EMC, performance and the environment.
Please visit www.iec.ch for more information.
IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 3

International Electrotechnical Commission
3, rue de Varembé
PO Box 131
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
T +41 22 919 0211

info@iec.ch
www.iec.ch
Copyright © 2013 IEC, Geneva, Switzerland.

All rights reserved. IEC is a registered trademark of
the International Electrotechnical Commission.
Other names may be trademarks of their respective
owners.
Table of contents
About the IEC .......................................................................................................................
Foreword ..............................................................................................................................
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................
Commended Papers
Cloud Computing Standardization Insights from past standardization

By Ken Krechmer
University of Colorado .......................................................................................................... 1
The Benefits of Standards and Standardization in the German Electrical and

Electronic Industry
By Axel Mangelsdorf, lead-author, BAM Federal Institute for Materials,
Research and Testing; Knut Blind, co-author, Technical University Berlin,
Chair of Innovation Economics .............................................................................................. 2
Bridging the divide with a three-way handshake

By Joyce van de Vegte
Camosun College ................................................................................................................. 3
The IEC in brief .....................................................................................................................
The IEEE in brief ...................................................................................................................
IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012

Foreword
During the past 100 years there have been more inventions than during the previous history of mankind.
This unprecedented technological advancement influences global trade and the environment. It brings
social changes at national, regional and international levels.
Electrical, electronic and related technologies – collectively known as electrotechnology – impact

people’s comfort and standard of living, their communication and interaction with their environment.
These technologies may largely determine a society’s ability to exchange information, to develop and to
prosper. Broad access to safe and efficient electrotechnology is dependent on universally accepted
technical specifications and standards, which enable interoperability and international trade.
Academia has a key role in helping to advance international standardization efforts. Academia educates
electrical and electronics engineers, as well as business managers, and today it has become the principal
training ground for future business leaders.
The IEC and IEEE recognize the contribution of the academic world, not only in the form of scientific
theory, research and engineering applications, but also as a partner that strives to improve processes to
achieve their future goals.
This book contains the winning papers from the IEC IEEE Challenge – how some of the best and
brightest minds in the field of higher education see that standardization impacts social, economic and
environmental development.
Frans Vreeswijk
GENERAL SECRETARY & CEO
IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012

Introduction
What was the IEC IEEE Challenge 2012?
Centred on the theme “How does electrotechnology impact economic, social and environmental
development?” the IEC IEEE Challenge invited the world’s academics to challenge the perception
of electrotechnology and how universal standards influence all spheres of development. Academic
institutions were challenged to analyze and debate the impact of electrotechnology on the economic,
social and environmental development of nations and regions, including how accepted standards affect
this process.
Who was involved?
About the IEC
The IEC is the world’s leading organization that prepares and publishes International Standards for
all electrical, electronic and related technologies – collectively known as “electrotechnology.” It brings
together 164 countries and close to 13 000 experts on the global level. IEC International Standards
include globally relevant specifications and metrics that allow electric or electronic devices to work
efficiently and safely with each other anywhere in the world. IEC work covers a vast range of technologies
from power generation, transmission and distribution to home appliances and office equipment, batteries,
nanotechnology, renewable energy, to mention just a few. The IEC supports all forms of conformity
assessment and manages Conformity Assessment Systems that certify that equipment systems or
components conform to its International Standards. www.iec.ch
About IEEE
IEEE, a large, global technical professional organization, is dedicated to advancing technology for the
benefit of humanity. Through its highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and
professional and educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of areas ranging from
aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and
consumer electronics. As part of its activities, IEEE has an extensive standards development programme
with a portfolio of over 900 active standards and more than 500 standards under development.
www.ieee.org
The Economist
The Economist is a weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting,
commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science and technology. The Economist is
read by a worldwide audience of three million decision-makers. They include board directors,
financiers, administrators, opinion-formers and politicians, many of whom hold influential positions at the
centre of decision making in major international organizations. The Economist was represented on the
panel of judges for the nomination of the awards. www.economist.com

Introduction
What was the IEC IEEE Challenge process?
The IEC IEEE Challenge was launched by the chief executives of both organizations in October 2011 at
the IEC General Meeting in Melbourne, Australia. Papers were submitted electronically until 1 July 2012.
Content
Papers could include a large range of topics, including fundamental research and development; energy
efficiency and climate change motivation; energy security; public health; roll-out of renewable and Smart
Grids; waste management; environmental preservation; case studies where electrotechnology and
standardization helped solve real-world challenges; economic growth and GDP; R&D; laws and
regulations; safety of populations; technology transfer and information exchange; corporate efficiency
and competitiveness; ability to innovate and export.
Who was eligible to participate?

The IEC-IEEE Challenge was open to all people affiliated with an Academic Institution that offers post-
graduate study programmes. This included members and heads of faculty, professors, lecturers, post-
graduate students, teaching and research staff.
Theme and Style

The goal was to select and publish the best academic submissions which made outstanding
contributions towards the understanding, and demonstration of, the linkage between electrotechnology
(including technical standardization) and economic, social and environmental development at national,
international or global level.
Prize money: Total of $45 000

1st Prize: $20 000
2nd Prize: $15 000
3rd Prize: $10 000
Final judging
The publications were judged by a distinguished panel comprising:
IEC Immediate Past President Jacques Régis
Dr Moshe Kam, 2011 IEEE President, and Department Head, Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Drexel University
Paul Markillie, Innovation Editor at The Economist
Judging Criteria
All submissions which complied with the IEC-IEEE Challenge rules were reviewed and judged according
to the following criteria:
• Analysis and demonstration of linkage between economic, social or environmental development

and electrotechnology, including some of the driving forces and prerequisites for success, notably
standardization
• Originality of publication – novel approach, original findings

Introduction
• Quality–refinement, analysis, argumentation that reaches publishable quality (level of English is not
a judging criterion)
• Sophistication and depth of research – demonstrate the review of relevant literature
• Readability and clarity – topic needs to be accessible to an audience of educated non-specialists
While the IEC-IEEE Challenge was open to a wide variety of disciplines and topics, preference was
given to submissions that also reflected on the impact of technology standardization (electronic, electrical,
information and communication) in the overall analysis.

Cloud Computing Standardization
Insights from past standardization
Ken Krechmer
University of Colorado
About the author
Ken Krechmer
Ken Krechmer (krechmer@csrstds.com) is a lecturer at the University of

Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA where he taught a three credit unit graduate
engineering course on the theory of standards. He was Program Chair of the
Standards and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT) conference in 2001
(Boulder, CO), 2003 (Delft, Netherlands) and 2007 (Calgary, Canada) and
co-Program Chair of SIIT 2009 (Tokyo, Japan) and 2011 (Berlin, Germany).
In 2006 he received a joint second prize in the IEC Centenary Challenge paper
competition. In 1995 and 2000 he won first prize at the World Standards Day
paper competition. From 1990 to 2002 he was the founding technical editor of Communications
Standards Review, technical journals reporting on standards work-in-progress in the Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). He has also been secretary of TIA TR-29 (facsimile
standards) 1990-1995 and a US delegate to ITU-T Study Group 8 (fax), 14 (previous modem standards),
15 (xDSL) and 16 (modem, video, conferencing) meetings.
He consulted on standardization strategies 1980 - 2000 for clients including: France Telecom, British
Telecom, NEC, Dialogic, Intel, Ascend Communications and Pacific Telesis. He is a Senior Member of
the IEEE and a Member of The Society for Standards Professionals.

Insights from past standardization
Ken Krechmer
University of Colorado
Abstract
Cloud computing is the delivery of computing as a service rather than as products. It promises to
dramatically simplify the development and deployment of new and very large economic, social and
environmental applications. The future success of these applications will be greatly impacted by the
standardization processes used to define the building blocks and interfaces in these systems.
The standardization of very large, multi-national cloud computing systems is just beginning. The history
of standardization and other large system standards offers valuable lessons on how cloud computing
standardization might proceed to maximize vendor participation and user acceptance. This paper
proposes a technical approach to assist cloud computing standard development organizations
accomplish these difficult tasks.
1 Introduction
Cloud computing is a service, like a utility, that allows software, platforms and infrastructure to be
available as needed to mobile and stationary users over the Internet [1]. Cloud computing is desirable
for distributed applications such as: financial exchange, international trade, social networks, epidemic
monitoring, health care informatics, emergency services, smart power grids, and environmental
monitoring and management. These vital new services suggest significant commercial cloud computing
opportunities.
Commercial motivation will stimulate investment in cloud computing systems, which is very desirable,
but also makes standardization more difficult. Commercial organizations will work to maximize profit by
asserting their intellectual property rights (IPR) or market advantage, to control cloud computing markets.
Achieving higher profit is a legitimate goal of commercial organizations. Because standardization is vital
to establish multi-national markets for cloud computing services [2], cloud computing standardization
should be managed to support both innovation and competition, maximize participation in the
standardization process and minimize incompatibility of competing cloud services. This paper proposes
a technical approach to assist cloud computing standard development organizations (SDOs) accomplish
these difficult tasks.
First, the complex interaction between standardization and innovation needs some clarification [3].
Standardization of similarity (e.g., similar clothing sizes, lumber grades, time zones or battery voltage)
reduces variation and therefore reduces potential innovation. However, the standardization of
compatibility increases variation and innovation [4]. As example: compatibility standards and
specifications include: WiFi, the cellular air interface, the Universal Serial Bus (USB 2.0), and
Windows™ Applications Program Interfaces (APIs). In each case, large new markets (wireless LAN,

smart phones, memory cards, PC software) have emerged from the creation of these compatibility
standards/specifications.
Compatibility standardization defines interfaces and protocols which increase innovation and invention,
but also increase the costs of interface design. Similarity standardization defines specific properties of
a product or service which forestall innovation, but decrease the costs of production, operation and
maintenance [5]. While similarity and compatibility standardization have completely different effects,
functionally similarity and compatibility are tightly intertwined. In all cases, when the similarity of
each of two interrelated entities (e.g., a cell phone and base station) is standardized, a compatible
relationship between the two standardized entities is also defined (e.g., the same protocols connect
both) [6].
Compatibility standards (e.g., APIs, interfaces, protocols) are crucial for multi-vendor cloud computing
systems, but there are different standardization approaches. Standardization history helps to explain the
different approaches.
2 The beginnings of standardization
The increasing application of technology after 1600 AD differentiates Western culture from other cultures
in the same period [7]. The Indian, Ottoman, or Chinese cultures which began with a similar, or perhaps
greater, grasp of technology were left behind by the growth and success of technology in the West. One
little explored aspect that differentiates the West from other cultures is the emergence of technical
standardization [8].
In England, the Royal Society began meeting in 1660. King Charles III granted the Royal Society a
charter in 1663. As a result of the efforts of the Royal Society, the scientific (fact-based) description and
publication of what had previously been craft emerged [9]. The Royal Society’s publications on
measurement instruments defined the then-current measurement technology [10]. The structure of the
Royal Society established a powerful concept – that a balance between public interests (the King’s
charter) and private interests (of the members) could codify technology for everyone [11].
With measurement instruments, rigorous measurement standards became practical. A similar

organization to the Royal Society was established in France in 1666. By 1799 (after the French
revolution), the then named “l’Institut national des sciences et des arts” established the technical basis
of the metric system, a fact-based standard measurement system [12].
With measurements standards defined, similarity specifications could be created. Thomas Jefferson
reported (1785) to the United States Congress on H. Blanc’s work in France on interchangeable parts
for the rapid repair of muskets after a battle [13]. By 1819, interchangeable parts were made using
fixed metal gauges (early similarity specifications) which verify if the musket parts are interchangeable
[14]. As measurement technology advanced [15], the difficult to use gauges were replaced by
written measurements to define similarity. Because of the close connection between similarity
and compatibility, it is always possible, but often undesirable, to achieve extensibility (compatibility)
by defining similarity. In cloud computing, the standardization of similar software, platforms or
infrastructure is one approach to creating extensible systems. Defining similarity has the unfortunate
aspect of picking specific implementations and rejecting others. Even if an implementation is
selected without IPR, it is one version. Different cloud computing user requirements will need
different versions.

Once similarity is defined, compatibility standardization develops. As similar parts are made accurately
enough to be interchangeable, related parts become compatible, i.e., they fit together. In England in
1841, J. Whitworth proposed to the Institution of Civil Engineers the standardization of screw threads
on nuts and bolts [16]. Mechanical compatibility establishes fixed interfaces: the relationship between
a bolt and a nut, a train’s wheels and the track, a pipe and its coupling, or an AC plug and socket.
In the 19th century, the public value of defined interfaces was not understood [17] and large scale
systems that needed to be compatible were operated by one organization (i.e., a railroad or a
utility). Currently each cloud computing vendor offers incompatible services which protect and limit
each vendor’s market, much like a 19th century utility. In the 21st century, cloud computing should
be a ubiquitous utility, not a private utility company.
Software standardization emerged in 1959 with the programming language COBOL (COmmon
Business-Oriented Language), which creates software similarity [18]. Writing programs in the same
language decreases the costs of development, operation and maintenance. With COBOL, the
software market emerged; then compatibility between different programs developed (e.g., COBOL
applications and mainframe operating systems).
An early consortium, the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA), was formed in
1961 [19]. Consortia are SDOs operated for commercial (private) interests [20], often, by establishing
an acceptable way for all members to exchange IPR. Two consortia which address cloud computing
standardization are the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) and the Storage Networking
Industry Association (SNIA). International cloud computing standardization is also being addressed
by public SDOs including: the ITU (e.g., Focus Group on Cloud Computing), ISO/IEC Joint Technical
Committee 1 (SC 38, Distributed application platforms and services), and the IEEE Cloud Computing
Initiative [21].
In 1961 ISO/IEC JTC-1 established an important precedent by inviting ECMA to become a

liaison member of a new committee, TC-97 (Computers and information processing), to work
on software standardization [22]. Today ISO/IEC JTC-1 continues its interaction with consortia
by recognizing the work of DMTF and SNIA as “PAS submitters.” PAS (Publicly Available
Specifications) submissions allow these consortia to submit draft specifications directly to
ISO/IEC JTC-1 for review and approval. This allows the different SDOs to support one specifica-
tion/standard for one function.
The next step is to support different standards/specifications from different SDOs for one function.
It is already common for programmable systems to support multiple compressions algorithms or
multiple browsers. While counter-intuitive, when systems are programmable, standardizing multiple
different ways to provide similar functions (multi-mode) offers some advantages. These advantages
are developed in sections three and four. The technical approach to multi-mode standardization is
described in sections five and six.
3 Public and private reason
When an SDO operates without collusion (private interests are not joined), a compatibility
standard should emerge that establishes a balance between private gain and public desires (low
cost and backward/forward compatibility). However, intellectual property issues appear to unbalance
more and more compatibility standards [23]. Inventor’s IPR are granted to help them profit from
their inventions by precluding competition from similar (i.e., copied) products. IPR are now applied

to both sides of a compatible interface, created not by invention, but agreement. IPR on
compatibility represents an unintended expansion of IPR which adds costs to an interface required
in a standard. To better support the public interests, cloud computing SDOs should find ways to
balance the increasing creation, assertion and cost of intellectual property in compatibility
standards.
Establishing and maintaining a balance between private gain (e.g., market control and profit)
and the public’s need for economical compatible operation may be the most difficult task of
modern standardization committees. The philosophy underlying standardization helps to
understand why new approaches to balance public and private reason are needed in cloud
computing SDOs.
The philosophical basis for balanced standardization emerges from public reason, which was first
enunciated by T. Hobbs (1651) as the sovereign’s view [24]. Recently, the philosopher J. B. Rawls
expanded public reason to include common sense, the clear results of science (e.g., technical merits),
and public political values (e.g., representation, consensus and due process) [25]. Public reason is
distinguished from private reason which includes private gain (both economic and egotistic), and
personal moral or religious values.
Both private and public reason exist in the cloud computing standardization process [26].
Some standardization policies (e.g., PAS submissions) help to balance these interests. However,
concerns have been raised over the expansion of consortia standardization [27]. Such concerns
are unnecessary, so long as market competition exists. Representational governments are dominated
by politicians who receive the most votes from citizens. In a similar manner, markets are dominated
by the most widely used products. Continuing the analogy, citizens are represented by a government
only if they can choose among multiple politicians (voting); users are represented by markets
only if they can choose among multiple vendor’s products (competition). When there are free
markets (i.e., no restraint of trade), consortia usually support public reason, as each consortium
becomes a proxy for its vendors and the vendors are a proxy for the users. Cloud computing
standardization by different SDOs, representing diverse standardization approaches, is more likely
to support and expand all markets. But the politics of standardization can get in the way, as
not every member of a cloud computing SDO has the same view, or definition, of the public
reason.
4 The politics of standardization
The standardization of cloud computing is accomplished in a committee which attempts to

balance its memberships’ public and private reason. The members of an SDO may represent
users, academia, implementers or government organizations. Like any group of people, these
members form political alliances within the standardization committee to further their own interests,
which are often altruistic, and the interests (often commercial) of the organizations they represent.
Looking at the dimensions of standardization: who, where and when helps explain the politics of
standardization [28].
4.1 Who is supporting the standardization?
The participants in any standardization committee come from different organizations. Their affiliation is
less important to the standardization process than their motivation (Table 1).

Table 1 – Motivation of standardization participants.
Standardization participants Motivation
Creators Define the most desirable technology
Implementers/vendors Organizational goals (e.g., profit)
Users User requirements
Government Public reason
Creators and implementers, usually the majority of a standardization committee, attempt to support
public reason by defining technology best suited to the known user requirements, most of the time. But
that does not assure a consensus (required in most SDOs) when some participants place their private
reason ahead of public reason.
Where markets are controlled by dominant suppliers, where IPR costs become excessive, or where fixed
compatibility creates market control (e.g., railroad track gauge, early cell phone systems, Microsoft APIs),
standardization can exacerbate anti-competitive behavior. This can occur legally, as example, when
multiple patent holders pool their intellectual property and require an expensive license to implement a
standard. The high cost of the IPR associated with MPEG/H.32x audio/video compression technology is
an indication that public reason is not well balanced. In this case, the Chinese government promoted an
alternative standard [29]. When SDOs do create a balance of interests, no government intervention need
occur. Governmental anti-trust and anti-competitive review is all that is necessary [30].
4.2 Where will the standardization apply?
Standardization may occur within an organization, industry group (e.g., consortia or trade association),
country, region or world-wide. As “where” becomes geographically larger, the market size and the need
for standardization becomes greater. As example, a single facility could implement a proprietary local
area network, but world-wide networking such as the Internet or cloud computing requires world-wide
compatibility standards.
4.3 When does the standardization occur?
It is not uncommon, when a large new market is beginning, for precursor products to emerge in
advance of the standardization process, as shown in Fig. 1. Amazon Web Services [31], GoogleAppEn-
gine [32] and Microsoft Azure [33] are examples of three precursor and incompatible cloud computing
services.
When and how standardization occurs can make a significant difference in the growth of cloud
computing markets. Fig. 1 identifies how precursor products sales are negatively impacted by
incompatible standardized products. One example of a precursor product is IBM’s proprietary
Synchronous Network Architecture (SNA) which was the dominant network architecture for many years
before the Internet established a public network architecture. The users of the precursor product in Fig.1
will bear the costs to migrate their cloud computing services to the standardized version, once it
becomes commercially available.

It is not uncommon, when a large new market is beginning, for precursor products to emerge
When and
in advance ofhow standardization process,
the standardization occurs can as make
shownainsignificant difference
Fig. 1. Amazon Web in Services
the growth of
[31],
cloud computing[32]
GoogleAppEngine markets. Fig. 1 identifies
and Microsoft Azure [33] howareprecursor
examples products
of threesales are negatively
precursor and
impacted by
incompatible incompatible
cloud computingstandardized
services. products. One example of a precursor product is
IBM's proprietary Synchronous Network Architecture (SNA) which was the dominant network
Whenarchitecture
and howfor many years before
standardization occursthe
can Internet
make aestablished
significant adifference
public network architecture.
in the growth of
Thecomputing
cloud users of the precursor
markets. Fig.product in Fig.
1 identifies 1 will
how bear theproducts
precursor costs to sales
migrate
aretheir cloud
negatively
computing
impacted services to the
by incompatible standardized
standardized version,One
products. onceexample
it becomesof acommercially available.
precursor product is
IBM's proprietary Synchronous Network Architecture (SNA) which was the dominant network
architecture for many years before the Internet established a public network architecture.
sales
The users of the precursor product in Fig. 1 will bear the costs to migrate their cloud
computing services to the standardized version, once it becomes commercially available. Standardized
product(s) life
Initial standardization
cycle
period
sales
Standardized
product(s) life
cycle
period
Precursor product(s) life
cycle
Precursor product(s) life

idea time
research
cycle development introduction growth maturity decline
Product Development Phases
Figure 1. Products’ phases relative to standardization, when precursor products are not
idea time
compatible with
research the standard. introduction
development growth maturity decline
Figure 1 – Products’ phases relative to standardization, when precursor products
are not compatible with the standard.
Figure
sales 1. Products’ phases relative to standardization, when precursor products are not
compatible with the standard.
Standardized
product(s) life
sales cycle
period Standardized
product(s) life
Precursor product(s) cycle
life cycle Initial standardization
period
idea Precursor product(s)

research time
life cycle development introduction growth maturity decline
idea
Figure 2. Products’ phases relative to standardization, when precursor products are time
research development introduction growth maturity decline
Figure 2. Products’ phases relative to standardization, when precursor products are

Figure 2 – Products’ phases relative to standardization, when precursor products
are compatible with the standard.
Fig. 2 identifies that the user investments and operations are less disrupted when standardization
supports backward compatibility. Because of backward compatibility, the standardized product
eventually subsumes the sales of the precursor product. Supporting multiple cloud computing services
(i.e., common syntax and conversions between different semantics) would allow Amazon Web Services,
GoogleAppEngine and Microsoft Azure to interwork (to some extent) with a future standard.
If one of these precursor services can gain a substantial market share, it may become a “de facto
standard.” Then the de facto vendor will enjoy a sizeable market without competition – an advanta-
geous position from a commercial vendor’s viewpoint. This possibility of a closed market for their de
facto cloud computing service is an unfortunate incentive to the vendor to avoid or delay standard-
ization [34].
An indication of the implementers’ strong desire to control a standard is a “standards war.” As example,
consider the video disk format war (a compatibility war): Blu-Ray or HD-DVD [35]. This standards war
occurred when competing implementers with different technical solutions to the interface between the
disk and the disk player refused to agree on one technical solution to be included in a fixed compatibility
standard [36]. Such wars represent a standardization breakdown, as standardization should be a
balanced process with a focus on public reason. Standards wars occur because the economic stakes
are very high. The more users who are compatible with one format, the more desirable (and profitable)
that format becomes.

Economists call this powerful effect of compatibility network externalities [37]. Network externalities
often create dominant suppliers (e.g., IBM SNA, Cisco routing protocols, Microsoft APIs) in systems
where compatibility is required. In such systems, users have less choice and public reason may be
subverted.
5 The standardization challenge for cloud computing
The cloud computing SDOs’ challenge is getting each competing implementer to agree to negotiate their
proprietary interfaces and services (compatibility specifications) as a part of a meta standard that only
negotiates (without data transfer or control functions) which APIs, protocols, formats, converters,
gateways, and specifications to utilize. When the meta standard defines a single logical tree structure
where the only changes allowed (in one revision level) are additions, backward compatibility is always
maintained. Such meta standards are termed adaptability standards. Krechmer [38] defines the
minimum syntax and identifies existing adaptability standards.
Considerable cloud computing standardization activity is underway. A reference architecture and use
cases for cloud computing have been created [39], and work on compatibility standards is underway
(e.g., IEEE draft P2302). But cloud computing today has few standardized APIs, and different proprietary
services support incompatible protocols and formats. The technical problems of achieving and
maintaining compatibility between different precursor products and systems in the cloud computing
environment are considerable [40]. At the semantics level, “mash-ups” [41] are proposed to define
converters to connect different cloud computing services [42]. Adaptability standards could negotiate
which converters to apply.
When an adaptability standard defines how to negotiate all capabilities, a desirable feature for
implementers emerges. Each adaptable end sends to the other a menu of all available capabilities.
The class of capabilities that are proprietary are identified and each proprietary option (if supported) is
also identified by a representation of a trademarked name. The trademarked name must be received
at each end to invoke any proprietary option. If an unlicensed implementer sends someone else’s
trademarked name, it is a case of illegal use of trademark, not a complex intellectual property litigation.
Adaptability standards could negotiate all cloud computing capabilities, including open source
implementations (e.g. OpenNebula, OpenStack). Even open source implementations manifest private
reason. Any private APIs (e.g., Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud APIs), even when supported by others
(e.g., Eucalyptus), should also be optional and negotiable. When intellectual property is identified after
a compatibility standard is in use, the meta adaptability standard can be revised (and the new revision
downloaded from the Internet) to change the negotiation of the patented technology to optional. As all
implementations must maintain previous revisions, backward compatibility is maintained. When the
technology in a compatibility standard is fixed, royalty charges can be what the market will bear rather
than what is fair. For these reasons, all private algorithms, functions, protocols or interfaces should only
be supported as negotiable options. Only when the public reason is clear, e.g., the cost is small relative
to the performance gain, should private property, no matter how controlled, be required in a cloud
computing standard used by the public.
Bluetooth (short range wireless for headsets and other applications) is an example of the public benefit
created (zero royalties) and commercial success possible, when private control is supported in a
standard. The 16,000 Bluetooth consortium members have agreed to zero royalties between them
on the basic interface standard and together shipped billions of Bluetooth products [43]. The Bluetooth

interface supports a member controlled code (rather than a trademark exchange) identifying any
proprietary features offered.
If a proprietary cloud computing service becomes successful, other commercial implementers,

hoping to capitalize on its success, may reverse engineer key interfaces to compete with the original
implementer. The trademark exchange proposed via adaptability standards offers a means for innovative
cloud computing implementers to control their proprietary options similar to how a patent gives control
of similar products to the inventor. When the value of trademark negotiation is understood by proprietary
cloud computing implementers, they will have a reason to participate in cloud computing standardization.
The Internet increased innovation by establishing two layers of protocol standards (TCP and IP) which
define compatibility within the network. The TCP/IP protocols operate over almost any communications
service and provide communications support to almost any application. In this way TCP/IP supports
multi-mode communications and applications. But any changes to the fixed TCP/IP compatibility layers
are very difficult to accomplish. As example, the IP version 4 to IP version 6 conversion has gone on
for over 10 years and is a long way from accomplished [44]. The success of the Internet is based upon
multi-mode operation. Cloud computing’ success has a similar requirement, hopefully without the
limitations of fixed compatibility standards.
6 Standardizing adaptability
Programmable cloud computing systems, developed by different implementers and standardized in

different SDOs, can support overlapping or multiple standards and options for compatibility, to maximize
competition and diversity, so long as the SDOs define an independent, automatic, bidirectional negotiation
(adaptability) to achieve compatibility. Including all the ways (if proprietary, only as options) to interface and/or
operate in the cloud, in the same standardization committee, or in multiple standardization committees, avoids
choosing standards winners and losers. Each implementer of a proprietary capability will need to market directly
to their customers, as they currently do. If users find the proprietary capabilities desirable, they will use them.
When alternative features, functions and standards from different vendors are available, competition occurs and
royalties will be established by market forces, not forced by SDO selections.
There are also political examples to support multiple standards for the same function (another form of
multi-mode operation): China did not participate in the development of 2G cellular standards, therefore
Chinese companies had little intellectual property relating to the next generation 3G cellular standards.
To address this economic problem, China chose to standardize an additional 3G compatibility standard
(TD-SCDMA) and support the use of this technology in China [45]. Then cross licensing of the TD-SCDMA
technology with technology from other companies allows the Chinese companies to minimize royalty
payments.
The disadvantage is that each multi-standard cell phone system has one more cellular technology (and
associated development costs). When cell phones were not programmable, requiring another standard
would have been near impossible. And a trade war with China could have resulted. Now, with
programmable cell phones, an additional standard seems a less disruptive way to resolve such a
problem. While multi-standard 3G cellular is not adaptive, multi-standard 3G does show how
multi-mode operation can mitigate IPR issues.
Computers (e.g., in cell phones, tablets or PCs) are programmable and can easily support multi-mode
operation. One example is the operation of Chrome, Mozilla and Microsoft Internet Explorer browsers in

a single computer. In PCs, the user manually selects which browser to use. Multi-mode systems may
be adaptable (both ends negotiate, e.g., G3 facsimile), flexible (one end changes in response to the other
end, e.g., XML), or fixed (e.g., IPv4). The current state of the standardization art is to use XML as a meta
standard to select common modes. In programmable systems this is better than fixed standardization,
but XML makes requests for defined functions, and does not negotiate between independent functional
lists (menus). For this reason XML selection processes do not mitigate standards wars or high royalties.
XML processes might be enhanced to support negotiation and trademark exchange, but that is beyond
the scope of this paper.
The users’ choices decrease and costs increase when competition is diminished. Implementers,
with intellectual property or market power, are often unwilling to give up the profits made possible by
controlling which function is requested. The implementers would rather, for realistic commercial reasons,
have a standards war or a standoff where no standard is agreed. Such actions are not in the public
interest. Where there are different implementations of the same capability, rather than SDOs choosing
one, an adaptability standard is able to negotiate any selection from many implementations.
7 Meeting the challenge
Adaptability standards will accelerate the markets for cloud computing. Without adaptability
mechanisms to negotiate common revision levels, individual cloud computing system vendors might
change APIs, protocols and formats at will, and other independent vendors would be unable to maintain
compatibility.
Formats and protocols require rigorous specification for compatibility, including revision levels and
options. Since many formats and protocols are independent standards, new revisions of these standards
would propagate across independent cloud computing systems at different times. Adaptable interfaces
allow negotiations to occur to select the highest revision of an API, protocol or format that is available on
each side of an interface. Without trademark-protected adaptable negotiation, there is little incentive for
successful implementers to join a cloud computing standardization effort. These are cogent reasons why
cloud computing SDOs should develop adaptability standards.
All the cloud computing standardization stakeholders need to understand this new technical
approach to multi-mode system standardization and how it can change intellectual property issues.
Exchanging trademarks across an interface provides a reason for all implementers to participate in the
standardization process. Innovative implementers gain better control of their technology and market
position. This makes standardization avoidance and standards wars unnecessary. Without conflict and
confusion, the cloud computing markets will grow more rapidly, benefiting all implementers and users.
Adaptability standards offer cloud computing SDOs a new means to achieve a balance between public
and private reason, attract proprietary implementers to standardization, increase competition, and avoid
standardization winners and losers. When cloud computing SDOs standardize adaptability and let market
forces chose compatibility, everyone wins.
8 Acknowledgment
The author, who is not a cloud computing expert, wishes to recognize the technical support provided by
Luis Vaquero, who is. Irrespective, any errors remain the author’s responsibility.

References and Notes
[1] The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing, NIST special publication 800-145, September 2011.
[2] “The adoption of standards marks an important stage in the passage from a scientific novelty to
a commercial product.” J. E. Holmstrom, Records and Research in Engineering and Industrial
Science, Second Edition, Chapman & Hall Ltd., London, 1947, page 65.
[3] D. G. Choi, H. Lee, T. Sung, Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation,’
Scientometrics (2011) 88:259–278.
[4] K. Krechmer, The Entrepreneur and Standards, International Standardization as a Strategic Tool:
Commended Papers from the IEC Centenary Challenge 2006, p. 143-154. Geneva, Switzerland.
This paper defines similarity and compatibility standards successions.
[5] P. A. David, Some new standards for the economics of standardization in the information age,
editors: P. Dasgupta & P. Stoneman, Economic Policy and Technological Performance,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1987.
[6] K. Krechmer, The Mathematical Basis of Standards, Proceedings of the Standards and
Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT) Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, September 23, 2005.
[7] R. Friedel, A Culture of Improvement, Technology and the Western Millennium, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 2007, page 7-8.
[8] “It is because of standardization of industry that Western civilization has been able to forge
ahead and Eastern civilization remains pretty much where it was one or two centuries ago.”
N. F. Harriman, Standards and Standardization, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, NY, 1928,
page 16.
[9] A.R.J.P. Ubbelohde, The Beginnings of the Change from Craft Mystery to Science as a Basis for
Technology, chapter 23, History of Technology, Vol. IV, Oxford University Press, London, 1958.
[10] T. Sprat, The History of the Royal Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge,
London,1667.
[11] Friedel, A Culture of Improvement, page 397.
[12] H. A. Klein, The World of Measurements, page 108-115, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1974.
[13] K. R. Gilbert, Machine-Tools, chapter 14, page 437, History of Technology, Vol. IV.
[14] Friedel, A Culture of Improvement, pages 327-328.
[15] In 1834 J. Whitworth presented a measuring machine capable of comparing physical English
yard standards to within a millionth of an inch. K. R. Gilbert, Machine Tools, chapter 14,
page 433, History of Technology Vol. IV.
[16] Friedel, A Culture of Improvement, pages 331-332.
[17] The engineer Silas Seymour (who recommended the rail gauge of 5’ to US President Lincoln.)
“believed it advantageous for a major line to control its own rolling stock rather than interchange
cars.” D. J. Puffert, page 127, Tracks across Continents, Paths through History, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago. IL, 2009.
[18] M. F. Hill, The World of EDP Standards, page VI-26, Control Data TM4, 1972.
[19] ibid., page V-1.
[20] C. F. Cargill, Information Technology Standardization, Digital Equipment Corp, 1989, Standards
consortia, page 208.
[21] http://standards.ieee.org/news/2011/cloud.html
[22] Cargill, Information Technology Standardization, pages 148-155.
[23] A. Updegrove, The Essential Guide to Standards, Chapter 4, Intellectual Property Rights And
Standard Setting, http://www.consortiuminfo.org/essentialguide/intellectual.php. See also,
T. Simcoe and M. Rysman, Measuring the performance of standards setting organizations,
page 91, Fig. 1 The increase in total IPR disclosures, International Standardization as a Strategic
Tool, IEC Centenary Challenge, 2006.

[24] L. B. Solum, Legal Theory Lexicon: Public Reason, 4/12/2011, http://lsolum.typepad.com/le

galtheory/2011/12/legal-theory-lexicon-public-reason.html
[25] J. B. Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, page 212, New York, 2005.
[26] T. Büthe & Walter Mattli, The New Global Rulers, The Privatization of Regulation in the World
Economy, Princeton University Press, page 11, Princeton, NJ, 2011.
[27] D. L. Garcia, Standards for Standard Setting: Contesting the Organizational Field, page 15-29,
S. Bolin ed, The Standards Edge: Dynamic Tension, Sheridan Books, Ann Arbor, MI, 2004.
[28] E. Baskin, K. Krechmer and M. H. Sherif, The Six Dimensions of Standards: Contribution
Towards a Theory of Standardization, page 53, Management of Technology, Sustainable
Development and Eco-Efficiency, edited by Louis A. Lefebvre, Robert M. Mason and Tarek Khalil,
Elsevier Press, Amsterdam, 1998.
[29] V. Fomin, J. Su, P. Gao, Indigenous standards development in the presence of dominant
international standards: the case of the AVS standard in China, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management Vol 23, Issue 7, pages 745-758, Taylor & Francis, 2011.
[30] P. Weiser, Making the World Safe for Standards Setting, 2007. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa
pers.cfm?abstract_id=1003432
[31] http://aws.amazon.com/
[32] http://code.google.com/appengine/
[33] http://www.microsoft.com/azure/default.mspx
[34] “We find that firms with good reputations or large existing networks will tend to be against
compatibility ...” M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition and
Compatibility, Page 424-440, The American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, June, 1985.
[35] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_war#cite_note-Ulmann-0
[36] C. Shapiro, H. R. Varian, Information Rules, Chapter 9, Waging a Standards War, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1999.
[37] Katz and Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition and Compatibility.
[38] K. Krechmer, Fundamental Nature of Standards: Technical Perspective, IEEE Communications
Magazine, Vol. 38, #6, June, 2000, p. 70. Adaptability standards are termed etiquettes in this
paper.
[39] ITU-T Focus Group on Cloud Computing, Cloud-O-0086, December 2011.
[40] Loan T.H Vo, J. Cao, W. Rahayu, Discovering Conditional Functional Dependencies in XML Data,
Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology (CRPIT), Vol. 115. H. T. Shen
and Y. Zhang, Eds, Perth, Australia, 2011.
[41] M.P. Papazoglou. W. van den Heuvel, Blueprinting the Cloud, pages 74-79, Internet Computing,
IEEE, Volume: 15 , Issue: 6, 2011.
[42] M.P. Papazoglou and L. M. Vaquero, Knowledge-Intensive Cloud Services: Transforming the
Cloud Delivery Stack, pages 449-494, Knowledge Service Engineering Handbook, Taylor &
Francis Group, 2012.
[43] http://www.bluetooth.com
[44] http://www.vyncke.org/countv6/stats.php
[45] J. Stewart, X. Shen, C. Wang & I. Graham, From 3G to 4G: standards and the development of
mobile broadband in China, pages 773-788, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Vol. 23, Issue 7, 2011.

The Benefits of Standards and Standardization in the
German Electrical and Electronic Industry
Axel Mangelsdorf 1
BAM Federal Institute for Materials
Research and Testing
Knut Blind 2, 3
Technical University Berlin,
Chair of Innovation Economics
About the authors
Dr. Axel Mangelsdorf, lead-author
Axel Mangelsdorf studied economics in Berlin and Montreal. From 2008 to 2010
he was a researcher within the HARTING Graduate Programme “Mittelstand
und Innovation” at the Berlin University of Technology (TU Berlin), from which he
received his doctorate with honors in fall 2010. Axel Mangelsdorf worked as a
consultant at the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO). He works
as a research assistant at the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing
(BAM) since 2011, where he deals with economic aspects of the national quality
infrastructure.
Knut Blind, co-author
Prof Dr Knut Blind studied economics, political science and psychology at

Freiburg Uni-versity, where he also took his doctorate degree in economics.
From 1996 to 2010 he worked at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and
Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany, as a senior researcher, and later as
Head of the Competence Center “Regula-tion and Innovation”. Knut Blind
is Professor of Innovation Economics at the Faculty of Economics and
Management at the Berlin University of Technology (TU Berlin). He has also held
the endowed Chair of Standardisation at the Rotterdam School of Management,
Erasmus University since 2008. In April 2010 he became Head of the “Public
Innovation” research group at the Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication
Systems in Berlin. Besides numerous internationally published articles on
standardization, Knut Blind has also published contributions on intellectual
property rights, especially patents, and on innovation economics and innovation
management.

The Benefits of Standards and Standardization in the
German Electrical and Electronic Industry
Axel Mangelsdorf 1
BAM Federal Institute for Materials
Research and Testing
Knut Blind 2, 3
Technical University Berlin,
Chair of Innovation Economics
Abstract
Standardization and standards are by recognized as important instruments in economic and innovation
policy. Standards support technological change and enable new products and services to access global
markets.
With this focus on mind, we want to know how standards and participation in standardi-zation
committees benefits companies in the electrical and electronic industry. In 2008, the Chair for
Innovation Economics of the Technical University in Berlin in cooperation the German Electrical and
Electronic Manufacturers’ Association (ZVEI) conducted a company survey to examine this question.
About 170 companies filled out our question-naire. The survey includes questions on how companies
participate in standards setting bodies, how information on standards is provided and how standards are
implemented in companies.
Obviously, involvement in standards setting bodies is an important task for companies in the
electrotechnical industry. About 75percent participate in DKE -- the German Electro-technical
Commission -- and about half of the companies participate in CENELEC and IEC respectively.
Regarding information sources of standards the results show that the national trade as-sociation and
the national standards body – DKE the German Electrotechnical Commis-sion – are in important
providers for information on standards and standardization work. Standards application does not
come for free. Companies face different costs, ranging from translation of foreign standards to
identifying the correct standard and proper im-plementation. In addition, smaller companies find it
difficult to identify relevant standards and deal with their complexity.
Of course, standards deliver lots of benefits to businesses. Enhanced product safety and quality are
the most important ones. Other advantages are directly related to business performance. The
companies answered that standards help to increase their competi-tiveness and increase their
market. New product development is essential for every busi-ness and standards -- as majority of the
Also affiliated with:

1
Technical University Berlin, Chair of Innovation Economics
2
Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS)
3
Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Department of Management of Technology and Inno-vation)

The Benefits of Standards and Standardization in the German Electrical and Electronic Industry
companies in our survey told us -- are important information sources for new technical knowledge.
Interestingly, the advantages of stand-ards application are evaluated differently by companies who
participated in standardiza-tion. For participants, standards application is much more important to
increase their competitiveness and market area compared to non-participants. Obviously, participation
in standards setting committees influences the way companies perceive the strategic ad-vantages of
standards. Therefore, we recommend in our paper -- among others -- that standards setting bodies
need to support participation in order to increase companies’ awareness regarding strategic potentials
of standards.
1 Introduction
Standards essentially enable the operation of the electrotechnical industry. Interoperability standards
such as the electric vehicle charging plug enable compatibility between products and components and
increase the efficiency of global supply chains (Blind 2004; Swann 2000). Safety and quality
standards are widely present for electrical consumer goods and make usage reliable and safe (Guasch
et al. 2007). In the European Union safety standards for electrical appliances are also used in
mandatory regulations. New Approach Directives -- such as the Low Voltage Directive -- refer to
harmonized standards which define technical safety details, reduce the workload of regulators and
enable the functioning of the European Single Market (Egan 1998). Besides protecting consumers and
permitting interoperability, standards are success factors in international markets. In particular,
standards generated in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) facilitate the global exchange
of electrical, electronic and related technologies (Mangelsdorf 2011; Moenius 2006). For companies in
the electrotechnical sector participating in standardization represents an opportunity to influence the
technical content of standards specifications according the company specific specialization
and ensure mar-ket success. Moreover, companies -- and in particular small and medium sized
enterpris-es (SMEs) -- learn from other firms, research organizations and other stakeholders and
benefits from the knowledge transfer and the knowledge generation process in standards setting
committees (Blind and Mangelsdorf 2012).
How are standards applied in the daily business routines of firms in the electrotechnical industry and
what are the benefits? What are actual incentives and obstacles to partici-pate in standardization?
How to enhance participation? We answer these questions with an extensive company survey of firms
in the German electrical and electronic industry. We focus on formal standards as opposed to de facto
standards. Formal standards in the electrotechnical industry are produced at the national level by DKE
German Commission for Electrical, Electronic & Information Technologies, at the European level by
CENELEC the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization or at the international level by
IEC the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC). Whereas de facto standards are developed
without restrictions in market processes, formal standards arise out of voluntary standards setting
organizations in agreed, open and transparent consensus based processes of interested parties.
Formal standards are therefore of higher legitima-cy and quality (Belleflamme 2002; Leiponen 2008)
Formal standards prevent standards wars (Rysman and Simcoe 2008) and receive greater government
recognition (Tassey 2000).
In the next chapters we present the views on formal standards and standardization of the companies
in the electrotechnical industry. First, we give general information about the industry and the
companies in our survey. Then, in the third chapter, we examine com-panies’ experience regarding
the application of formal standards. In the fourth chapter we examine companies’ views with respect
to obstacles to participation and instruments to increase participation. In the fifth section we
summarize our results and give some rec-ommendations to standards setting organizations.

2 General information on the companies
In order to target aspects related to standards and standardization the Institute for Inno-vation
Economics of the Technical University in Berlin conducted a company survey in cooperation with
The German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association (Zen-tralverband Elektrotechnik-und
Elektronikindustrie e.V. - ZVEI). More than 1,600 compa-nies in the German electrical and
electronic industry employ about 844,000 people and deliver an annual turnover of 178 billion
Euros. With 12 percent of the total industrial pro-duction in German the electrical and electronics
industry is the second largest industry sector in Germany. The industry is highly internationalized
and innovative. About 155 billion Euros are earned from exports sales. Investment in Research and
Development amounts to 13 billion Euros which represents one fifth of Germanys total R&D
spending (ZVEI 2011).
About 170 companies filled out our questionnaire providing a response rate of more than
10 percent. Our sample consists of relatively equal numbers of small and large compa-nies. Three
companies are classified Micro Enterprises with less than 10 employees and 4 companies are
Multinational Companies with more than 100,000 employees. The ma-jority of the companies in
our sample employ less than 500 people and based on the definition of the European Commission
(EC 2005) 71 companies can be classified as Small and Medium sized enterprises (SMEs).
Figure 1 – Company sample - size distribution
Companies of the German electrical and electronics industry had average total sales of about
4,500 million Euros per year and about 70% percent came from export sales. In order to generate
new innovations, the companies invested about 9 percent of their sales in Research and Development
(Figure 2).
Figure 2 – Total Sales, Exports Sales, R&D Investment

As can be seen from Figure 3 the investment in R&D pays off. About 93 percent of the companies
surveyed introduced distinctly improved products to the market and 77 per-cent applied for one or more
patent. In short, the companies in the German electrotech-nical industry are highly innovative.
Figure 3 – Innovation Activities
3 Benefits of Electrotechnical Standards
This chapter addresses companies’ experience with formal standards. It includes the questions
concerning the procurement of information on standards and the application of standards. Applying
standards delivers a lot of benefits to companies but also involves some costs. We examine the
importance of costs and benefits and provide evidence that participation in standardization has an impact
on the perception of both aspects: partici-pants compared to non-participants appreciate the benefits as
larger and perceive the costs as lower.
For firms in the electrical sector knowledge about standards is crucial. Even more im-portant is to
know what kind of new standards developments are on the way. But where do firms gather information
standards in their field? Firms rely on different sources and the each of the sources is of different
importance. We asked the companies to assess the importance of different information providers.
Figure 4 shows the answers. ZVEI -- the national trade association -- is most important for German firms.
Obviously, the trade association acts as intermediary between standards setting organizations and
companies. The association screens existing standards and new standards developments and hands
down information to its members. The German Commission for Electrical, Electronic & Information
Technologies (DKE), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the European Committee
for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) are also important providers. Other national
standards organizations, the PERINORM database and other standards providers are not important
sources.
Figure 4: Information Sources

Applying standards in the companies’ everyday business is not always easy and comes with some
costs. Companies need to invest time to identify which standards are relevant for them, purchase
standards and interpret the scope of standards. When standards be-come de facto mandatory through
certification requirements or are the basis for regula-tions companies need to pay for third party auditing
and for adjust their production pro-cesses (Terlaak and King 2006). Adjustment costs increase even more
when standards requirements change and companies need to invest in personnel training and re-certify
their products or production processes.
We asked the companies what costs are most significant (Figure 5). The companies pay most for
certification related to standards and to comply with legal requirements which are defined by standards.
However, the costs of standards application are not the same for all business. We found some
very interesting pattern in our data: companies who are participants in standardization (labeled as
“Standardizers” in light grey) perceive the costs of standards application as much less severe as
companies who did not participate in standards setting (labeled as “Non-Standardizers” in dark grey).
This is true for all aspects but the difference is especially large for understanding standards (complexity
and the scope of interpretation), identifying standards and aspects related to adjustments in the
production process. Standardizers even perceive the purchasing costs of standards as less costly and
the training of personnel as less burdensome. Participants of stand-ardization processes do not see
that there is a lack of translation for foreign standards but non-participants regard this as a problem.
Obviously, participation in standardization helps companies to become familiar with the standards
application. For participants it is easier understand the content of standards and easier to implement
standards. In short, participation changes companies’ cost-benefit perspective of standards application.
For companies in the electrotechnical industry participation in standardization means saving costs by
facilitating standards implementation.
Figure 5 – Costs of standards application
Of course, standards deliver lots of benefits to businesses. Besides enabling compatibility between
products, the most documented effect of standards is the positive effect on quality and safety. When
consumers cannot assess the quality and safety of products prior to purchase high quality products will
be forced of the market (Akerlof 1970). Quality and safety standards can overcome the market failure
because consumers are able to distinguish between high quality and low quality products and high
quality producers profit from higher prices (Swann 2000; Leland 1979). When standards are associated

with an international reputation they also increase the competitiveness of firms (Blind 2004) and especially
international standards are success for factors in global trade (Blind and Jungmittag 2005; Mangelsdorf
2011). Referring to standards in contracts also reduce transaction costs (Clougherty and Grajek 2008)
which simplifies negotiations and could lead to lower insurance costs. Beside quality and safety
enhancing effects of standards, economists regard standards as means to realize economies of scale
(Swann 2000). Through reduction of product varieties standards reduce unit costs of products, save
ma-terial used in production and facilitate product development. Finally, standards documents themselves
include technological knowledge that companies want to access.
We asked the companies in which aspects standards delivers the largest benefits (Figure 6). Most
important is that standards help to make products safer. This is followed by in-creased competitiveness
and the creation of compatibility between products. Reducing production and development costs through
economies of scale is less important. With the exception of safety, the differentiation in Standardizers
and Non-Standardizers reveals again that Standardizers regard most aspects as more important than
Non-Standardizers. For Standardizers applying standards has a larger impact on firms’ success
factors such as enhancing competitiveness and product quality and increasing the market areas than for
Non-Standardizers. Obviously, participation helps companies to both reduce costs of standards
application and to realize the benefits of standards application. Participants of standardization committees
are the more successful standards implementers.
Figure 6 – Benefits of standards application
4 Enhancing Participation in Standardization
Obviously, involvement in standardization is an important task for companies in the elec-trotechnical

industry. About 75 percent participate in DKE the national level and about half of the companies
participate in CENELEC and 45 percent in IEC. When participating is beneficial for companies’ business
performance why are not more companies involved? We asked the companies in our questionnaire
about the obstacles to participation and what instrument would increase participation. We present the
answers in the following chapter.
First, we asked what obstacles prevent companies from participation at all or -- for companies that
already participated in standardization -- prevent them from participating in more committees. The
answers range from cost related aspects such as travel expenses, loss of personnel for the time of

committee and participation fees. In addition, companies should evaluate the importance of factors that
are related to the standards setting process itself. The factors include, among others, the time it takes
to develop standards, the limited number of participants allowed in committees and the possibility of
dominant stakeholders such as consumer groups. Other barriers for participation include the of company
internal incentives or external acknowledgment for participating persons and the possibility of “free
riding”, i.e. the fact that other companies or trade associations al-ready represent the companies
interests in standards. Finally, intellectual property rights (IPRs) might prevent companies from
participation. Companies holding patens might not want to lose important knowledge to other firms in
standardization committees. Existing patents for technologies might also prevent standardization when
the patent holder is not ready to make the technical information to everybody.
In Figure 7 we present the results. Most important for both standardization participants and non-
participants is the time to develop standards. Both parties also agree that there is a lack of company
internal incentives and external acknowledgment, that free-riding is not a reason to stay away from
standardization and that IPRs are no barriers. For the remaining aspects, however, participants and
non-participants have opposing views. Non-Standardizers regard cost related aspects such as travel
expense, participation fees and loss of personnel for participation as important barrier but Standardizers
do not share this view. Companies that already participated in standards setting obviously are aware that
those expenses are well invested whereas Non-Standardizers are not sure about the returns of
investments in standardization.
The largest discrepancy between participants and non-participant concerns the obstacle “Lack of
possibilities to enforce own content.” Companies that already participated evalu-ate the aspect as
not important but non-participants regard the lack of influence as a sig-nificant barrier. It seems that
Standardizers already know that the consensus based standards setting process allows them to actively
determine the content of the standard whereas Non-Standardizers are rather pessimistic about their
possible influence. Partici-pation in standardization not only changes the perception about the
cost- benefit-ratio of standards application but the experience of past standardization activities also
influences the cost-benefit-ratio of participation and the perception of what companies can actual
achieve.
Figure 7 – Obstacles to Participate in Standardization

Finally, we asked the companies what instruments and actions should be implemented to enable or
enhance participation. The proposed actions are closely related to the barriers for participation mentioned
in the last paragraph. As can be seen from Figure 8 both Standardizers and Non-Standardizers agree that
timely market driven standardization processes are important instruments to increase participation. Both
parties also agree that more information on standardization processes and improvements regarding
trans-parency and coherency of standardization projects would be helpful to increase participa-tion
although Standardizers emphasize this to a lesser extent. Cost-free provision of standards documents
is also seen a reward for the standardization work. Instruments related to cost of the standards setting
process are evaluated differently by Standardizers and Non-Standardizers. The latter would see reduction
of participation fees and travel expenses as a positive incentive for participation but for Standardizers it is
almost not important at all.
Figure 8 – Instruments to Enhance Participation
5 Summary and Policy Conclusion
Standards and standardization are essential elements for the functioning of the electro-technical industry.
Standards enable interoperability between products and are necessary for ensuring quality and safety
and represent and important aspect of firms’ competi-tiveness, especially in international markets. Even
though the importance is widely ac-cepted in the industry and academia not much is known about
companies’ everyday business experience with standards application and participation in standards
setting committees. Therefore, we approached all companies in the German electrotechnical industry
and used an extensive company survey to explore their experience with stand-ards and standardization.
Most interestingly, our survey allowed us to differentiate the answers in companies which had experience
in standardization (‘Standardizers’) and this without such experience (‘Non-Standardizers’). The
differentiation reveals and a mean-ingful pattern regarding the companies’ perception of cost and
benefits of standards ap-plication and involvement in standardization. We summarize our results as follows.
First, applying standards involves some costs. Our results show that companies regard certification
costs most important but adjustment costs of production processes and pur-chasing standards are also
mentioned. Compared to Non-Standardizers, we found that Standardizers have a different perception of
standards related cost. Standardizers regard the costs associated with standards application as much

less severe. In short, participation in standardization means saving costs because it facilitating the
implementation of standards.
Using standards deliver lots of benefits to businesses. The benefits range from increasing product safety
and quality, increased competitiveness to increasing the market area. The differentiation in Standardizers
and Non-Standardizers reveals that Standardizers benefits much more from standards application. For
Standardizers, applying standards has a much higher impact on their competitiveness and the ability to
extend their sales to international markets. Obviously, participation helps companies to reduce costs
related to standards application and to realize the benefits of standards application. Participants of
standardization committees are the more successful standards implementers.
When participating is beneficial for companies’ business performance why are not more companies
involved? What are the barriers to participation? The companies in our survey mentioned that it takes
too much time to develop standards. Missing company internal incentives and company external
acknowledgement are important barriers. Cost related aspects such as traveling expenses and
participation fees also play a role but only for companies that never participated. Obviously, Standardizers
are aware that those ex-penses represent good investments and Non-Standardizers do not know what
returns investment in standardization will deliver. Our results also show that non-participant think that they
would not have an influence on the content of the standards where as partici-pants know that will have
an influence. Involvement in standardization changes the per-ception about the cost-benefit-ratio of
standards application and the experience in com-mittees influences the cost-benefit-ratio of participation in
the sense that they learned that they will have an influences how to influence the content of the standard.
What instruments are available to enhance participation? The companies in our survey wish that
developing standards happens quicker because the market requires faster standards development
cycles. They would also like to receive more information on on-going standardization activities and
expect more transparent and coherent processes. Provision of cost-free standards documents for the
developers of standards is seen a reward for their work. Non-Standardizers also wish to pay less
participation fees and travel expenses.
Based on our results we derive the following policy recommendations. An increase in the participation
of companies in standardization processes would be the starting point for broader dissemination of
standards, reduced costs subject to standards application and heightened impact concerning the
practical application. Apart from increased awareness of the strategic potential of standards and an
enhanced authority for standards experts, relevant aspects include the following: the timely processing
of standardization projects, transparency and coherency in standardization processes, and a more
structured provi-sion of information regarding ongoing standardization plans.
Formal standardization organizations are requested to take the according measures. A first step towards
this goal is the implementation of a web-based portal for online opposi-tion. Another obstacle, travel
expenses and costs of labor, could be ameliorated by the introduction of planned online committee
sessions via web conferences. In the event of positive feed-back from increased participation, increased
usage and positive cost-benefit-ratio, the economic impact of standards can be enhanced.
Of course not all companies have the adequate capacities to participate in standardization. For these
companies, and especially SMEs, an alternative in the form of interested representation through associations is
highly recommended. In order to increase standard dissemination independent from increased participation,
initial steps should include, first, the implementation of a high-capacity online portal for international standards research
and, second, the reduction of accession costs for standards abstracts, contents of the document and its scope.

References
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) ‘Market for Lemons - Quality Uncertainty and Market Mechanism’, Quarterly Journal
of Economics no. 84 (3):488-500.
Belleflamme, P. (2002) ‘Coordination on Formal vs. De Facto Standards: a Dynamic Approach ‘,

European Journal of Political Economy no. 18:153-176.
Blind, K., and A. Mangelsdorf (2012) ‘Alliance Formation of SMEs: Empirical Evidence From
Standardization Committees’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management: (forthcoming).
Blind, Knut. 2004. The Economics Of Standards: Theory, Evidence, Policy. Cheltenham, UK /.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Blind, Knut, and A. Jungmittag (2005) ‘Trade and the impact of innovations and standards: The case of
Germany and the UK’, Applied Economics no. 37 (12):1385-1398.
Clougherty, J. A., and M. Grajek (2008) ‘The impact of ISO 9000 diffusion on trade and FDI: A new
institutional analysis’, Journal of International Business Studies no. 39 (4):613-633.
EC (2005), ‘European Commission. The new SME definition. User guide and model declaration’.
Egan, M. (1998) ‘Regulatory strategies, delegation and European market integration’, Journal of European
Public Policy no. 5 (3).
Guasch, J.L., J.L. Racine, I. Sánchez, and M. Diop. 2007. Quality Systems and Standards for a
Competitive Edge. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Leiponen, A. E. (2008) ‘Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in

Wireless Telecommunications’, Management Science no. 54 (11):1904-1919.
Leland, H. E. (1979) ‘Quacks, Lemons, and Licensing - Theory of Minimum Quality Standards’, Journal of
Political Economy no. 87 (6):1328-1346.
Mangelsdorf, A. (2011) ‘The role of technical standards for trade between China and the European
Union’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management no. 23 (7):725-743.
Moenius, J. (2006), ‘Do National Standards Hinder or Promote Trade in Electrical Products?’,
In International Standardization as a Strategic Tool: IEC.
Rysman, M., and T. Simcoe (2008) ‘Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting
Organizations’, Management Science no. 54 (11):1920-1934.
Swann, G. M. P. (2000), ‘The Economics of Standardization’, In Final Report for Standards and
Technical Regulations, Directorate Department of Trade and Industry. Manchester: University
of Manchester.
Tassey, G. (2000) ‘Standardization in technology-based markets’, Research Policy

no. 29 (4-5):587-602.

Terlaak, A., and A. A. King (2006) ‘The effect of certification with the ISO 9000 Quality Management
Standard: A signaling approach’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization no. 60 (4):
579-602.
ZVEI (2011), ‘ZVEI Jahresbericht 2011/12. Annual report of the German Electrical and Electronic
Manufacturers’ Association.’:
http://www.zvei.org/Publikationen/ZVEI-Jahresbericht%202011%202012.pdf.

Joyce van de Vegte

Camosun College
About the author
Joyce van de Vegte
Joyce van de Vegte completed her B.A.Sc. in Engineering Science in 1985 and
her M.A.Sc. in Electrical Engineering in 1988, both at the University of Toronto.
She worked at the Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine for
six years, where her research focused on speech recognition and image
processing. Following a brief sojourn at Antom de Kom University in Suriname,
Joyce joined the Electronics & Computer Engineering Technology department
at Camosun College in Canada. Her teaching areas include digital signal
processing, renewable energies, and system dynamics, and she is at present
also the coordinator of the Engineering Bridge programs. Joyce has a strong
interest in internationalization and has taken teaching assignments at the Shan Dong University of
Technology in China, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology in Thailand, and the Da Nang University of
Technology in Vietnam. She recently completed a certificate in international education with the University
of British Columbia, and is engaged in the development of intercultural engineering resources.

Joyce van de Vegte

Camosun College
Abstract
The “digital divide” of global communication networks was preordained by historical differences in
access to personal computers. It is a divide between the beneficiaries of the Internet and those who do
not benefit, and exists along many dimensions – economy, education, health, information – with tangible
effects on human development and global visibility.

Unevenness of access to the Internet means that developing countries have been unable to exploit fully
the economic and educational advantages that the worldwide communication network can bring, though
Internet contributions to advances in health have been clearer. Differences in language and culture, along
with dearth of infrastructure and high cost of access, persist as obstacles to deeper Internet penetration
in developing countries. And, where Internet benefit is denied, visibility to the rest of the world is
impaired.
Email and file transfer gateways between networks using different communication protocols made small
steps in the early days of the Internet to narrow the digital divide, but it was the adoption of a global
Internet standard based on TCP/IP that had a sudden and enormous impact. Further standardization of
communication and language protocols continues to speed the closing of the divide, and contributes to
an Internet of uniform benefit to all.
1 Introduction
The idea of using networked computers to communicate was born in the 1960s. By the late 1980s
several global networks operating with different communication protocols coexisted. When the Internet
that was to become the standard for global communications emerged in 1990, world access to
computers was uneven in the extreme: 21.27% in the US, 7.04% in France, 0.04% in China, 0.02% in
Zimbabwe [63]. By this imbalance, and exacerbated by disparities in wealth, language, and literacy, was
the “digital divide” preordained.
The “divide” now manifests as a divide between the beneficiaries of the Internet and the rest, with those
on the wrong side of the divide missing proven potential benefits in economic, education, health and
information spheres. Numerous and persistent obstacles stand in the way of bridging the divide. When
the primacy of the Internet first began to assert itself, network gateways were created to permit disparate
networks to connect, but this solution was unwieldy and the need to standardize was soon apparent.
Standardization of network communication protocols, and the adoption of these standards around the
world, led to massive growth in Internet use. The Internet itself has a pivotal role in addressing key
challenges of the digital divide, including language of access and paucity of relevant content. The

ongoing development of standards, particularly those governing language and harmonious network
interconnection, continue to drive the closing of the divide.
2 How the Internet came to be
The 1970s and 80s were marked by the cacophony of acronyms that herald a nascent
technology in search of standardization. Regional networks that existed during this period relied
on a variety of underlying network protocols that permitted communication between computers
to take place. Though there were many of these [38], two important protocols emerged: X.25 and
TCP/IP.
X.25 was introduced in 1976 by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN agency
responsible for information and communication technologies. It operated over existing public
telephone networks. X.25 is a connection-oriented protocol, wherein routing information contained
only in the starting packets is used to establish a dedicated route for the data packets that follow.
By 1978, a global network called the International Packet Switched Service (IPSS), based on the
X.25 protocol, was in place. It had “large coverage throughout the world in the eighties and nineties
before being largely supplanted” [34, p.11]. Work began on a unified framework for network
protocols, called the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model, which was published by the
International Standards Organization (ISO) in 1984 [30]. The OSI model was designed to facilitate
interoperability of networks, and its developers were eager to incorporate X.25 [42], thereafter called
OSI/X.25.
TCP/IP, short for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, was published by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in 1974 [11]. It is also a packet-switched network, but differs
from X.25 in that it is a connectionless protocol, meaning that every packet contains address informa-
tion and is routed by whatever path is available to its destination. To permit secure and reliable trans-
mission of data packets, TCP connections between sending and receiving computers is established
and terminated through a “three way handshake”: You? OK, you? OK.
TCP/IP was developed to remedy some of the deficiencies of the Network Control Protocol (NCP)
being used by ARPANET,1 and was officially adopted in 1983 [41], ten years after ARPANET made
its first international connection [13]. ARPANET had by this time seen explosive growth resulting from
its release of the “killer application” email in 1972 [12, p.173], and was already showing signs
of becoming the “go to” global network. In 1985, the National Science Foundation (NSF) mandated
that universities receiving its funding had to use TCP/IP on its network NSFNET [42], and the
TCP/IP train gathered steam. As NSFNET pursued regular and substantial network speed
improvements, more and more institutions in the US, Canada and Europe switched from ARPANET
to NSFNET, leading to the eventual closure of ARPANET in 1990 [41]. It was at this point that a
global network running TCP/IP became the de facto Internet.
3 A digital divide is born
By the late 1980s, OSI/X.25 networks and TCP/IP networks had each encompassed the globe: OSI/X.25
in Europe, China, Russia, Africa, US, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, and Thailand; and TCP/IP in US,
Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands [39][42].
TCP/IP’s appeal grew [42][71], not just because it was free, but also because it was non-proprietary and

its “network-agnostic approach meant that it was easy to use any existing network infrastructure, such as
the IPSS X.25 network” [22, p.23].
As TCP/IP and the Internet gained dominance, network gateways were devised, enabling email and
files to move to and from OSI/X.25 networks, but these gateways were expensive and inefficient [45].
A migration to the Internet began, most swiftly in regions where computers were not a rarity. By 1994, as
Maathuis notes, “TCP/IP had won out over OSI” [42, p.171], and the Internet already comprised several
tens of millions of users.2
But not all the world saw exponential growth of Internet use right away. Among the countries who took
longer to connect to the standard, like Russia, China, and most of Africa and Central America [71], were
those that had been using primarily OSI/X.25 and, further, had low personal computer penetration.3 These
countries were suddenly at a terrible disadvantage where access to the global network was concerned.
Not only did they lack computers, network infrastructure and accumulated expertise in these domains,
they had invested in the wrong network. A gaping digital divide was born.
4 Adoption of the Internet standard
The digital divide, if it had been discussed during the late 1980s, would have been defined according to
a comparison of the benefits each international network offered. As the Internet assumed its place as the
global network standard, the information of potential benefit to users began to concentrate, with relatively
fewer benefits available in other international networks. One by one, countries around the world joined the
Internet majority.
The Gapminder World graph in Figure 1 displays the progress of (log) Internet penetration – the number
of Internet users per 100 people – for several countries. The points at which the Internet standard was
adopted are prominent, as a comparison with an Internet history timeline [9][71] shows. The graph shows
a dramatic uptake in Internet use when a country joined the Internet, or soon after, when public access
first became possible.4
Among those still relying on OSI/X.25 networks by 1990, countries like Ireland and Belgium that had
comparatively strong histories of computer and network use made rapid and seamless transitions to
TCP/IP and the Internet. Their adoption of the standard appears as a massive increase in Internet
penetration, a testimony to the perceived benefits the Internet would bring. These countries were soon
more or less indistinguishable from countries with longer Internet histories.
OSI/X.25-networked countries with less exposure to computers and networks had a lot of catching up to
do. As Internet use mushroomed elsewhere in the world, their espousal of the Internet lagged, causing
an even deeper digital chasm. Limited access to the Internet through gateway portals allowed Internet
penetration to increase slowly but, as Figure 1 illustrates, the sharpest increase in use occured where the
Internet standard was adopted and access made public. For countries with little computer or
network history, de facto standardization to the Internet meant that network infrastructure investments
were known to be good ones [3]. That a unified global internetwork had strong appeal is evident in the
rapid increase in the rate of Internet penetration in such countries as Ethiopia and Vietnam upon their
adoption of the standard. In Ethiopia, Internet penetration increased by a factor of 97 in the year following
adoption in 1995; in the years since it has never more than tripled. And Vietnam saw a nearly thirty-fold
increase within a year of its adoption of the Internet in 1996. These illustrations emphasize the particular
importance of Internet standardization in narrowing the gap between the connected and the
unconnected.

Figure 1 – Internet penetration5
Figure 2 examines the clustering of Internet penetration globally, showing the ratio between the third
and first quartiles for Internet use per 100 people, across all countries. The curve shows the connected
racing ahead of the unconnected during the early 1990s, widening the gap in Internet use. It also
confirms Maathuis’ claim of the triumph of TCP/IP over OSI/X.25 in 1994, establishing the Internet as
the effective world standard. By 2009 there were only 7.2 times as many Internet users per 100 people
in the 75th percentile country as in the 25th percentile country, down from a maximum of 189.7 in 1994,
a dramatic demonstration of the effect of standardization on the narrowing of the digital divide.6
Figure 2 – Interquartile ratio for Internet penetration, across all countries7
5 Using the Internet to bridge other divides
Standardization of the Internet’s network protocols through worldwide adoption greatly narrowed the
gap in Internet use in the years following 1994. This was a tremendous accomplishment and dramatically

broadened the access to the potential benefits the Internet could bring in economic, education, health
and information domains. It is the presence of such benefits that makes a gap in Internet use that might
be of academic interest only into a digital divide whose closing brings hope for development equity across
other, more important, divides.
The Economy. On the economic front, the Internet has come to mean access to new information,
markets and suppliers. Qiang [54] reports that for every 10% increase in Internet penetration
there is an increase in economic growth of 0.77% for high-income countries and 1.12% for low-
and middle-income countries. Conversely, Kenny posits that richer countries are better-positioned
to take advantage of information communications technologies and that wider access may
even speed divergence [35]. Anecdotally there have been successes, certainly. Telecentros in
El Salvador supporting accounting, invoicing, and stock control for owners of microenterprises
were profitable [36]; online sales of airline tickets in South Africa increased rapidly [66];
in Madhya Pradesh, farmers able to check wholesale prices at Internet kiosks enjoyed increased
soy prices [20]. But the promise of economic salvation by Internet has not materialized.
Figure 3 depicts greater Internet use worldwide from 1995 to 2008 and an increasingly strong
correlation between (log) income per person and (log) Internet penetration worldwide, but it shows
no decrease in global income disparity.
Figure 3 – Relationship between income per person and Internet penetration8
Education. Where Internet infrastructure is available and reliable, the Internet can contribute to literacy
and educational practice, and greater literacy (and prosperity) in turn increases Internet use. The
interaction is apparent in Figure 4, where a stronger correlation between adult literacy and (log)
Internet use emerges over time. Successful educational applications of the Internet in the developing
world have included, to name just a very few: the Virtual African University [37], the training of
ex-child combatants in Angola, Liberia and Rwanda in computer skills [46], online teacher training
in Indonesia and Sri Lanka [50], and distance education study centres to decrease rural literacy
rates in Pakistan [40]. Yet there are still many places, often rural and remote, where the Internet makes
no meaningful contribution, and any form of distance education is most reliably accomplished
by post [21].

Figure 4 – Relationship between adult literacy and Internet penetration9
Health. Internet success stories in the health arena abound, in telemedicine, health education, and online
medical libraries. In Uganda, online training for HIV prevention and care has been successfully used to
train teachers and students to counsel youth. Digital transmission of X-rays and electrocardiographs has
allowed remote diagnosis for rural patients many hundreds of kilometres distant from Cape Town in
South Africa [46]. Vital signs of the Caboclo Indians in the Amazon have been transmitted to the
US for diagnosis [60, p.50]. Digital photographs of diseased eyes have been collected at kiosks in
Tamil Nadu State, India [60, p.76], and distance education has been used in Latin America to encourage
breastfeeding [10].
Communication networks for health workers and sharing of medical databases via the Internet has
been a great boon for countries all over the world. Networks like HealthNet [44], the African Health
Infoway [25] and the Global Public Health Intelligence Network [47], all emerging in the 1990s and still
in operation, serve the goals of reducing infant, maternal and disease mortality through tele-education,
telemedicine, and the sharing of information about infectious diseases such as malaria and cholera.
The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains regional databases in support of these goals as well,
in which it strives to ensure that data from developing countries are given visibility [68]. In 2002, the
WHO collaborated with publishers of medical journals to launch HINARI (Health InterNetwork
Access to Research Initiative) to provide free online access to researchers in developing countries.
Since HINARI’s inception, the heaviest users include some of the poorest countries: Ethiopia, Nepal,
Sudan, Vietnam [10].
Medical advances and the capacity to share them with the world have produced increases in life
expectancy (with the exception of several African countries, including Zimbabwe, Kenya and Cameroon)
and a steady decrease in infant mortality, even in countries like Burundi, Eritrea, Liberia and Zimbabwe
that show economic decline. Though causality can of course not be claimed, Figures 5 and 6 show
that over time life expectancy and (log) infant mortality have become more and more strongly correlated
with (log) Internet penetration.

Figure 5 – Relationship between life expectancy and Internet penetration10
Figure 6 – Relationship between infant mortality and Internet penetration11
Society. Information is the theme that underlies all of the advantages that the Internet can bring, and its
gainful movement is not limited to the spheres of economy, education and health. The Internet provides
a vehicle for democratic engagement [8], the coordination of disaster relief efforts [58], the dissemination
of high impact images of war and revolution, and the streamlining of global efforts aimed at conservation
and environmental management [43]. Social media gives activists a platform [17][51], and links migrant
workers to their distant families. Indeed, in 2010, the Internet was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize
“for promoting dialogue, debate and consensus through communication” [53].
Witness the pivotal contributions of social media in the Egyptian protests of 2011, so powerful that on
January 28 of that year Hosni Mubarak shut down the Internet completely in an attempt to disrupt the
coordination of massive protests in Tahrir Square and their broadcast to the world. This and other “Arab Spring”
uprisings were fundamentally “enabled by communication and citizen mobilization via social media platforms”
[18, p.3]. As Ghannam remarks: “To peruse the Arab social media sites, blogs, online videos, and other digital
platforms is to witness what is arguably the most dramatic and unprecedented improvement in freedom of
expression, association, and access to information in contemporary Arab history” [18, p.4].

Where Internet access is absent, information cannot flow inward and “information poverty” [49] keeps
potential benefits of the Internet out of reach. Information does not flow outward either. Regions or
individuals without Internet access are, by and large, globally invisible. Hawkins [23] observes, for
instance, that Sub-Saharan African conflicts are intensely underrepresented in the media, even though
an overwhelming proportion of global conflict deaths occur there. For example, the number of CNN
segments devoted to the Second Intifada of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict12 during its first two years
exceeded the number covering the first two years of the Second Congo War in the Democratic Republic
of Congo (DRC)13 by a factor of 53, even though the number of deaths in the DRC conflict was roughly
1,850,000 compared to about 2,000 Israeli-Palestinian fatalities during the same interval [23, p.109]. Essa
suggests that the international media follow Arab conflicts but overlook the bulk of Africa, noting that
“most American media compulsively ignore everything south of the Sahara and north of Johannesburg”
[16]. It is not improbable that differences in Internet penetration, as well as accumulated Internet
expertise, contribute to differences in media coverage and global attention. Figure 7 presents Internet
penetration for Middle Eastern and African countries experiencing significant conflict since 2000. Since
the start of the millennium, Internet use in countries of the Middle East and North Africa is almost
uniformly greater than that in countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.14
Figure 7 – Internet penetration in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa15
6 The continuing role of Internet standardization
The digital divide is important precisely because one group of countries benefits preferentially in
comparison to another. In a 2011 paper, Amir Ali states that “the Internet’s growth, and the corresponding
benefits, have not been distributed equally across nations” [5, p.189], an echo of Kofi Annan’s message
in 2005, that “for far too many people, the gains remain out of reach” [6]. The inaccessibility of these
gains is the most important pragmatic manifestation of the digital divide. The gains are out of reach not
only because network infrastructure is lacking or because cost of access is prohibitive, although both of

these are important factors. They are out of reach as well for reasons of language and content.
Many users are unable to find relevant content – because it does not exist, because it does not exist
in their language, or because they cannot read. Access does not guarantee benefit, as Figure 8
suggests.16
Figure 8 – Access to Internet Benefit from Internet17
Gujarat merchants who get

Costa Rican farmer in
a better price for their cotton
an Internet café who is
because their provincial
unable to find advice
representative can check
on potato fungus
international prices
with
Illiterate Afghani boy access
with Congolese HIV patients
who sits in front of a
benefit who receive more effective
computer loaded with
treatment because the local
English distance without
doctor can access global
education materials access health databases
Figure 8 Access to Internet
An inability to benefit from the Internet signifies an unrealized potential. Widely-available, reliable and
affordable connectivity to the Internet is undoubtedly a prerequisite, and also a great challenge. Progress
in the developing world to close the “connectivity divide” has been uneven, influenced heavily by
differences in regulatory policy and varying levels of investment in network infrastructure. Technical
standards are a critical support for progress in this area. The process of creating a standard subjects
proposed ideas to broad review and generally means lower costs and wider availability sooner “because
the existence of a standard creates a common market” [60, p.13]. Wireless network standards like
IEEE 802.11, a family of Wi-Fi standards with maximum operating ranges from 30 m to a few hundred
metres, IEEE 802.20 (MBWA) up to 2.5 km, IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) up to 50 km, and IEEE 802.22 (WRAN)
up to 100 km [24][57], provide increasing flexibility in the design of economical networks intended to
reach rural places.18 Fiber optic and satellite standards that also serve wider connectivity are developed
by the ISO, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEEE, and ITU.
Connectivity alone, however, is not enough to start the flow of Internet benefits. Obstacles include: literacy
challenges, the representation of language scripts, dearth of local content, and the inability to search
and read websites or use email in one’s native language. The lingua franca of the Internet is still English,
though its dominance is declining. In 1998, 75 to 80% of websites used English; by 2007, only 45% did.
But this is still a disproportionate share for an Internet with only 32% native English-speaking users
[52, pp.9, 25]. Instrumental in increasing the linguistic diversity of the Internet have been the ongoing
developments of the ISO/IEC 10646 character encoding standard (the “Universal Character Set” or
UCS) and the Unicode text encoding standard that encompasses the UCS and includes rules for text
presentation. The current release of these standards permits over 109,000 characters of nearly
100 scripts to be represented [4][59]. Before Unicode, “there were hundreds of different conflicting
encoding systems to cover all languages” [14, p.52], preventing organized solutions.
Language-related standards also grease the wheels of progress towards Internet linguistic pluralism,
like ISO/IEC 14755 [31], which governs how Unicode characters are entered using keyboards and other
input devices, word segmentation standards, which form a basis for natural language processing, and a
plethora of ISO transliteration standards, which permit a text in one language to be expressed using the
script of another.

In Egypt, both the introduction of the Internet in 1993 and its commercialization in 1996 produced
usage growth spurts, but growth slowed by 2000 because the Internet was inaccessible to “the 97%
of Egyptians who did not speak English” [5, p.208]. Growth was stimulated when Arabic became easier
to publish.19 Facebook subsequently released support for Arabic script in 2009 [5], and in the following
year Egypt was the first country to take advantage of new regulations permitting internationalized domain
names.20 On 30 March 2012, Bothaina Kamel chose to announce her intention to be the first-ever
female presidential candidate in Egyptian history on Twitter [19], which released its Arabic language
support on 6 March [62]. Progress is steady, but the 3.8% of the world’s population that speak Arabic [7]
are still served by only 1.1% Arabic web content [65].
Internet developments in Egypt illustrate a powerful dynamic. When a group of people can read
and produce content in their own language, more and more culturally-relevant content appears,
creating a “positive feedback loop” [14, p.3]. Such resonance is important because global literacy
is improving tremendously. Even among the least developed countries, the average adult literacy
rate at the end of 2008 was 58% [64]. This suggests that providing access to a multilingual
Internet will rapidly translate into greater Internet penetration, and “eventually permit the
existence of content commensurate in just proportion with a language’s population of speakers”
[32, p.178]. Between 2000 and 2011, use of the Internet in the Middle East increased by 2345%
and in China by 2280% while growth in North America was just 253% [27][26][29], so the
interventions appear to be working.
The standardization of translation itself is a somewhat unexplored realm. The standard EN 15038,
for example, provides for quality management of translation services providers [61] and ISO 12616
offers a standard for the management of terminology [48]. Naturally standards themselves must
also routinely be translated. But, while a multitude of automatic translators is available online, it is
generally agreed that the quality of machine translation is low. Carol Eckmann, convenor of an
ISO working group, confirms, observing that: “With the advent of the Internet, the need for
language services such as translation and editing has exploded at all levels” [48]. It will be a
formidable task to produce standards that govern translation between language pairs, but it seems
inevitable that such mappings will one day be possible, paving the way for a truly levelled playing
field. When the Internet can present monolithically in the chosen language of the user, then research
published in Chinese, Arabic or Russian will transparently be available to scientists around the
world, economic and education resources will be widely shared, and political and social discourse
will no longer favour speakers of a dominating language.
7 Conclusion
The Internet has the power to transmit benefits of many kinds to its users, benefits that are still
unavailable to many. Internet protocols, beginning with TCP/IP and continuing with standards for
wireless, fiber optic and satellite networks, as well as for language encoding and presentation, are
speeding the demise of this “digital divide.” Translation will be the next frontier. Robust standards for
translations between pairs of languages will produce a seamlessly international Internet that can help
preserve the world’s rich cultural heterogeneity while also offering a powerful vehicle for communication,
development and peace. To what degree will economic, education and health divides be diminished
when the digital divide is finally closed? Only time will tell. Or, even better, as Babel Fish [69] reports after
a translation of this phrase from English to Chinese and back to English, “In the course of time will only
see the will of the people.”21

Endnotes
1
ARPANET, the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, was funded by the US Defence
Advanced Research Projects Agency.
2
R. Wilensky observed in 1996 that: “We’ve all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
we know this is not true.” Reported by J. Reed at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~reedsj/monkeys.html.
3
Personal computer penetration plotted against log income per person for 1990 may be viewed at
www.bit.ly/wicRoM, which shows ITU data through www.gapminder.org [55]. Geographic regions
are colour-coded, and the size of each bubble is proportional to the country’s population. Hover over
a bubble to see a country’s name, and drag the year pointer or click Play to see how the relationship
between personal computer penetration and log income per person evolves over time.
4
World Bank data coincide with the end of each calendar year. Depending on the month of joining
the Internet, the greatest increase in Internet penetration is seen in either the year of joining or the
year after. For a few countries, such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Senegal, the Internet
was first only the domain of universities or government, with full public access, and hence true
Internet adoption, delayed.
5
World Bank data through www.gapminder.org [55]. For this and all other Gapminder graphs,
geographic regions are colour-coded, and the size of each bubble is proportional to the country’s
population. Gapminder uses linear interpolation to replace missing data values. In Figure 1, the country labels
have been edited for clarity. The live version of this figure may be viewed at www.bit.ly/I8rFs7.
6
It must be noted that in 2009 the ratio of maximum to minimum Internet penetration was still a very
considerable 497.6, that is, the country with the heaviest Internet use had 497.6 times the Internet
penetration of the country with the lightest Internet use.
7
The graph of Figure 2 was created using World Bank data [67]. As in Figure 1, linear interpolation is
used for missing data.
8
Gapminder data http://www.gapminder.org/data/ through www.gapminder.org [55]. Observe how
the relationship between log income per person and log Internet penetration evolves over time at
www.bit.ly/zm7KSq by dragging the year pointer or clicking Play. Hover over a bubble to see a
country’s name.
9
UNESCO data through www.gapminder.org [55]. Observe how the relationship between adult literacy
rate and log Internet penetration evolves over time at www.bit.ly/wf3pkz by dragging the year pointer
or clicking Play.
10
Gapminder data http://www.gapminder.org/data/ through www.gapminder.org [55]. Observe
how the relationship between life expectancy and log Internet penetration evolves over time at
www.bit.ly/zXqAAa by dragging the year pointer or clicking Play.
11
Gapminder data http://www.gapminder.org/data/ through www.gapminder.org [55]. Observe
how the relationship between log infant mortality and log Internet penetration evolves over time at
www.bit.ly/wrtOOp by dragging the year pointer or clicking Play.

12
The Second Intifada of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in September 2000.
13
The Second Congo War in the DRC began in August 1998.
13
The Second Congo War in the DRC began in August 1998.
14
14
The exceptions are: Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Iraq, and Yemen. The DRC does not appear in the list of
The exceptions are: Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Iraq, and Yemen. The DRC does not appear in the list
Gapminder countries for this indicator, but it is certainly among the Sub-Saharan African countries
of Gapminder countries for this indicator, but it is certainly among the Sub-Saharan African
with the lowest Internet penetration. In 2008, for example, the DRC had 0.44 Internet users per
countries with the lowest Internet penetration. In 2008, for example, the DRC had 0.44 Internet
users
100
perpeople [67]. [67].
100 people
15
15
World
WorldBank
Bankdatadatathrough
through www.gapminder.org
www.gapminder.org [55].
[55]. In Figure
In Figure 7, the
7, the country
country labels
labels havehave
beenbeen edited
edited
for for
clarity. TheThe
clarity. livelive
version of this
version figure
of this may
figure bebe
may viewed
viewedatatwww.bit.ly/GSGrz8.
www.bit.ly/GSGrz8.
16
16
Moreover,
Moreover,statistics
statisticsofofInternet “use,”
Internet which
“use,” suggest
which benefit,
suggest are are
benefit, more often
more imperfect
often estimates
imperfect estimates of
of Internet access alone. Where detailed surveys of Internet use are not available, an average
Internet access alone. Where detailed surveys of Internet use are not available, an average number of
number of Internet users per subscriber is used [33][67].
Internet users per subscriber is used [33][67].
17
According to the World Bank [67], 30.5% of the world had access to the Internet in 2010, as
17
According
reflected by thetoarea
the of
World Bankaccess”
the “with [67], 30.5% of the world
circle compared to had access
the area to large
of the the Internet in 2010, as
background
circle.
reflected by the area of the “with access” circle compared to the area of the large background circle.
18
18
MBWA
MBWAisisMobile
MobileBroadband
BroadbandWireless Access;
Wireless WiMAX
Access; WiMAXis Worldwide Interoperability
is Worldwide for for Microwave
Interoperability
Microwave Access; WRAN is Wireless Regional Area Network.
Access; WRAN is Wireless Regional Area Network.
19
Some evidence of this new growth appears in Figure 1.
19
Some evidence of this new growth appears in Figure 1.
20
T. Kamel, the Egyptian communications minister remarked, “The Internet now speaks Arabic”
20
T. Kamel, the Egyptian communications minister remarked, “The Internet now speaks Arabic” [15].
[15].
21
21
只日久见人心。(Zhī
(Zhī rìjiǔ jiàn rénxīn.)rìjiǔ jiàn rénxīn.)
Bibliography
All websites accessed 24 May 2012.
[1] 2007 Fourth Quarter Stats, Internet World Stats News, No. 30, Jan. 2008.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/pr/edi030.htm
[2] 2007 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau, 2007.
http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07wpds_eng.pdf
[3] K.W. Abbott and D. Snidal, “International standards and international
governance,” Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 8, No. 3, Feb. 2000, pp.
345-370.
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications/working-
papers/pdf/wp_00_18.pdf
[4] About Versions of the Unicode Standard, Unicode, Inc., 2012.
http://unicode.org/versions/
[5] A. Ali, “The Power of Social Media in Developing Nations: New Tools for Closing
the Global Digital Divide and Beyond,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 24,
No. 1, 2011.

Bibliography
All websites accessed 24 May 2012.

[1] 2007 Fourth Quarter Stats, Internet World Stats News, No. 30, Jan. 2008.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/pr/edi030.htm
[2] 2007 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau, 2007.
http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07wpds_eng.pdf
[3] K.W. Abbott and D. Snidal, “International standards and international governance,” Journal of
European Public Policy, Vol. 8, No. 3, Feb. 2000, pp. 345-370.
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_00_18.pdf
[4] About Versions of the Unicode Standard, Unicode, Inc., 2012.
http://unicode.org/versions/
[5] A. Ali, “The Power of Social Media in Developing Nations: New Tools for Closing the Global Digital
Divide and Beyond,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2011.
http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/185-220.pdf
[6] “Annan calls for digital bridges,” BBC News, 16 Nov. 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4443392.stm
[7] Arab Speaking Internet Users Statistics, Internet World Stats, 31 Dec. 2011.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats19.htm
[8] C. Avgerou and S. Madon, “Information society and the digital divide problem in developing
countries,” in J. Berleur and C. Avgerou, Perspectives and policies on ICT in society, New York,
USA, Springer, 2005, pp. 205-218.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2576/1/Information_society_and_the_digital_divide_problem_in_
developing_countries_%28LSERO%29.pdf
[9] C. Buckridge, “A history of the Internet in Vietnam,” Apster, No. 15, Sept. 2005, pp. 2-4.
http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/27927/apster15-200509.pdf
[10] F. Bukachi and N. Pakenham-Walsh, “Information Technology for Health in Developing
Countries,” CHEST, Vol. 132, No. 5, Nov. 2007, pp. 1624-1630.
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/132/5/1624.full
[11] V. Cerf and R. Kahn, “A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication,”
IEEE Trans. on Comms, Vol. 22, No. 5, May 1974, pp. 637-648. http://ece.ut.ac.ir/Classpages/
F84/PrincipleofNetworkDesign/Papers/CK74.pdf
[12] Committee on Innovations in Computing and Communications: Lessons from History, National
Research Council, Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, The
National Academies Press, 1999. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6323&page=173
[13] Computerworld, “Timeline: Historical Nodes on the Net,” 2006.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/109623/Timeline_Historical_Nodes_on_the_Net
[14] Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, Harmonization of ICT Standards Related to
Arabic Language Use in Information Society Applications, United Nations, 2003.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unescwa/unpan030581.pdf
[15] “Egypt launches Arabic web domain,” BBC News, 16 Nov. 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8361676.stm
[16] A. Essa, “In search of an African revolution: International media is following protests across the
‘Arab world’ but ignoring those in Africa,” Al Jazeera, 21 Feb. 2011.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/02/201122164254698620.html
[17] N. Fitri, “Democracy Discourses through the Internet Communication:
Understanding the Hacktivism for the Global Changing,” Online J. of Commun. and Media
Technologies, Vol. 1, No. 2, Apr. 2011.
http://www.ojcmt.net/articles/12/121.pdf

[18] J. Ghannam, Social Media in the Arab World: Leading up to the Uprisings of 2011, Center for
International Media Assistance, Feb. 2011.
http://cima.ned.org/sites/default/files/CIMA-Arab_Social_Media-Report%20-%2010-25-11.pdf
[19] P. Goodspeed, “Unveiled female former television broadcaster aims to bring a social revolution to
Egypt in run for president,” National Post, 30 Mar. 2012.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/30/unveiled-female-former-television-broadcaster-aims-
to-bring-a-social-revolution-to-egypt-in-run-for-president/
[20] A. Goyal, “Information, Direct Access to Farmers, and Rural Market Performance in Central
India,” The World Bank Development Research Group Agriculture and Rural Development Team,
Policy Research Working Paper 5315, May 2010.
http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Information,%20Direct%20Access%20to%20Farmers.pdf
[21] S. Gulati, “Technology-Enhanced Learning in Developing Nations: A review,” The Int. Rev. of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2008.
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/477/1012
[22] H. Haddadi, “Network Traffic Inference Using Sampled Statistics,” M.Phil. thesis, Dept. of
Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College London, 1. Aug. 2006.
http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~hamed/transfer/thesis.pdf
[23] V. Hawkins, Stealth Conflicts, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008.
[24] IEEE Computer Society, Part 22: Cognitive Wireless RAN
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications:
Policies and Procedures for Operation in the TV Bands, IEEE Std 802.22™, Jul. 2011.
http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.22-2011.pdf
[25] A. Iluyemi and J. Briggs, “Building the African Union Continental-wide eHealth Network: Making
the Case for IP Wireless Broadband Networks,” Paper presented at ICT Africa, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, Feb. 2008.
http://www.keewu.com/IMG/pdf/PR_Building_the_AU_e-Health_Network-Iluyemi.pdf
[26] Internet Usage in Asia, Internet World Stats, 31 Dec. 2011.
[27] Internet Usage in the Middle East, Internet World Stats, 31 Mar. 2011.
[28] Internet Usage Statistics for Africa, Internet World Stats, 31 Dec. 2011.
[29] Internet Users in the World, Internet World Stats, 31 Dec. 2011.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
[30] ISO JTC1, Information processing systems -- Open Systems Interconnection -- Basic Reference
Model, ISO 7498:1984.
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=14252
[31] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 18/WG 9, Input methods to enter characters from the repertoire of
ISO/IEC 10646 with a keyboard or other input devices, ISO/IEC 14755, 13 Dec. 1996.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/ISO-14755.pdf
[32] ITU – Telecommunication Development Bureau, “Monitoring the WSIS Targets: A mid-term review,”
World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report 2010, ITU, 2010.
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Communication/Documents/WTDR2010_e.pdf
[33] ITU – Telecommunication Development Bureau, “World Telecommunications/ICT Indicators,”
ITU, Sep. 2008.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/Indicators/WTI_Technotes.pdf
[34] ITU – Telecommunication Standardization Sector (CCITT/ITU-T), “50 years of excellence:
1956 – 2006,” ITU, Jul. 2006.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/50/docs/ITU-T_50.pdf

[35] C. Kenny, “The Internet and Economic Growth in Less-developed Countries: A Case of
Managing Expectations?,” Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2003, pp. 99-113.
[36] Y. Khelladi, “Community-based content: The Infocentros Telecenter Model,” Digital Dividend Case
Study, World Resources Institute, Jul. 2001. http://yacine.net/pub/InfocentrosFinal.pdf
[37] W. Laaser, “Virtual Universities for African and Arab Countries,” Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, Vol. 7, No. 4, Jul. 2006.
https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde24/pdf/article_13.pdf
[38] S.S. Lam, “Protocol Conversion,” IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., Vol. 14, No. 3, Mar. 1988.
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/lam/Vita/IEEE/Lam88a.pdf
[39] L.H. Landweber, “International Connectivity Map,” Version 2, Sep. 1991.
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~lhl/maps/version_2.bmp
[40] J. Leary and Z.L. Berge, “Trends and challenges of eLearning in national and international
agricultural development,” Int. J. of Ed. and Dev. using ICT, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2006.
http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=179&layout=html
[41] B.M. Leiner, V.G. Cerf, D.D. Clark, R.E. Kahn, L. Kleinrock, D.C. Lynch, J. Postel, L.G. Roberts,
and S. Wolff, “Brief History of the Internet,” Internet Society, 2012.
http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/internet-51/history-internet/brief-history-internet
[42] I. Maathuis and W.A. Smit, “The battle between standards: TCP/IP vs OSI – victory through path
dependency or by quality?,” in Proc. 3rd IEEE Conf. on Standardization and Innovation in
Information Technology (SIIT 2003), Delft, The Netherlands, Oct. 2003, pp. 161-176.
http://doc.utwente.nl/46343/1/battle_between_-_maathuis.pdf
[43] D. MacLean, M. Andjelkovic, and T. Vetter, Internet Governance and Sustainable Development:
Towards a Common Agenda, IISD, 2007.
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/igsd_common_agenda_bg.pdf
[44] S. Madon, “The Internet and Socio-economic development: Exploring the interaction,”
Information Technology & People, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2000, pp. 85-101.
http://www.cs.ucy.ac.cy/courses/EPL011/readings/internet.pdf
[45] O.H. Martin, “The ‘hidden’ Prehistory of European Research Networking,” Apr. 2012.
http://www.ictconsulting.ch/reports/European-Research-Internet-History.docx
[46] G. Mutume, “Africa takes on the digital divide,” Africa Recovery (United Nations), Vol. 17, No. 3,
Oct. 2003. http://www.un.org/en/africarenewal/vol17no3/173tech.htm
[47] E. Mykhalovskiy and L. Weir, “The Global Public Health
Intelligence Network and Early Warning Outbreak Detection: A Canadian Contribution to Global
Public Health,” Canadian J. of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2006, pp. 42-44.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=history%20of%20gphin&source=web&cd=1&ved=0
CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournal.cpha.ca%2Findex.php%2Fcjph%2Farticle%2Fdownload
%2F756%2F756&ei=jqRsT56HIe3MiQKInuGjBQ&usg=AFQjCNFWydBrjeDzPzyJB5_-ty-TNAeSDQ
[48] New ISO standard will improve text quality of translations, ISO, 11 Jul. 2002.
http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref828
[49] P. Norris, “The Worldwide Digital Divide: Information Poverty, the Internet and Development,”
Paper for the Annual Meeting of the Political Studies Association of the UK, London School of
Economics and Political Science, 12 Apr. 2000.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/psa2000dig.pdf
[50] H. Perraton, C. Creed, and B. Robinson, Teacher education guidelines: Using open and distance
learning, UNESCO, Mar. 2002.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001253/125396e.pdf
[51] P. Phillips and M. Huff, “Inside the Military Media Industrial Complex: Impacts on Movements for
Peace and Social Justice,” Global Research, Dec. 2009.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16647

[52] D. Pimienta, D. Prado, and Á. Blanco, Twelve years of measuring linguistic diversity in the
Internet: balance and perspectives, UNESCO publications for the World Summit on the
Information Society, 2009.
[53] Press Trust of India, “Internet ‘nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2010’,” Economic Times, 3 Feb. 2010.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-02-03/news/27595224_1_nobel-peace-
prize-internet-communication
[54] C.Z.W. Qiang, “Broadband infrastructure investment in stimulus packages: relevance for
developing countries,” info, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2010, pp. 41-56.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLO
GIES/Resources/282822-1208273252769/Broadband_Investment_in_Stimulus_Packages.pdf
[55] H. Rosling, Gapminder World, 2012.
http://www.gapminder.org/world
[56] SASI Group and M. Newman, Worldmapper, 2007.
http://www.worldmapper.org/
[57] M. Shahraeini and M.H. Javidi, “Wide Area Measurement Systems,” in Advanced Topics in
Measurements, Z. Haq (Ed.), 2012, pp. 303-322.
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/31086/InTech-Wide_area_measurement_systems.pdf
[58] C. Soon-Hong, “The Role of the UN: ICTs in Crisis Response, Peacekeeping and
Peacebuilding,” in D. Stauffacher, B. Weekes, U. Gasser, C. Maclay, and M. Best (Eds.),
Peacebuilding in the Information Age – sifting hype from reality, Jan. 2011, pp. 4-5.
http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Peacebuilding-in-the-Information-Age-Sifting-
Hype-from-Reality.pdf
[59] Supported Scripts, Unicode, Inc., 2012.
http://www.unicode.org/standard/supported.html
[60] The Wireless Internet Institute (Ed.), The Wireless Internet Opportunity for Developing Countries,
World Times, Inc., 2003.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the+wireless+internet+opportunity+world+times&source
=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infodev.org%2Fen%2FDocument.24.
PDF&ei=ZlCOT9LGD8iLiAKQwfzGAw&usg=AFQjCNH1Ys4mRQvAYzsmVvQZgUUt2izcRA&cad=rja
[61] Translation services - Service requirements, European Committee for Standardization,
EN 15038:2006. http://esearch.cen.eu/esearch/
[62] “Twitter Now Available in Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew and Urdu,” twitter blog, 6 Mar. 2012.
http://blog.twitter.com/2012/03/twitter-now-available-in-arabic-farsi.html
[63] UN, Personal Computers per 100 inhabitants 1990, UN Millenium Development Goals
Database, 2012.
http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=MDG&f=seriesRowID%3A607
[64] UNESCO, UNESCO’s 2010 Contribution to the Report of the United Nations Secretary-General
for the 2010 Substantive Session of the Economic and Social council and for the Sixty-Fifth
Session of the General Assembly on the “Implementation of the Programme of Action for the
Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010,” UNESCO BSP.RP/LDC/10, 2010.
[65] Usage of content languages for websites, W3Techs Web Technology Surveys, 24 May 2012.
http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language/all
[66] S.C. Warden and I. M. Motjolopane, “E-Commerce Adoption Factors for SMMEs: Supporting
Cases from South Africa,” in Proc. Managing Worldwide Operations & Communications with
Information Technology, 2007 IRMA International Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 2007,
pp. 701-708.
http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/33168/

[67] World Bank, Data Catalog & World Development Indicators, 2012.
http://data.worldbank.org/
[68] World Health Organization Databases, WHO, 2012.
http://www.who.int/library/databases/en/
[69] Yahoo! Babel Fish Text Translation and Web Page Translation, 2012.
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
[70] P.K. Yu, “Bridging the Digital Divide: Equality in the Information Age,” Cardozo Arts
& Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2002, pp. 1-52.
[71] R.H. Zakon, “Hobbes Internet Timeline,” 2011.
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

The IEC in brief
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) is the leading global organization that
prepares and publishes International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies
(electrotechnology).
The IEC brings together 163 countries, and nearly 13 000 experts who cooperate on the global
IEC platform to ensure that products work everywhere safely with each other. Through its members, the
IEC promotes international cooperation on all questions of electrotechnical standardization and related
matters.
These International Standards are used in the assessment of conformity of electrotechnical products.
They are referenced in many laws and regulations and serve as a basis for national standardization.
IEC International Standards are also often included or referred to in international tenders and
contracts.
Developing and developed countries can participate in global value chains for electric and electronic
goods through the work of the IEC.
Manufacturers are able to bring their products to the market faster, limiting unnecessary duplication and
reducing cost.
Governments are better able to protect citizens from unsafe products and installations.
IEC work covers a vast range of technologies, including the generation of electrical energy (traditional
and all renewable energy technologies), transmission, distribution, Smart Grid and cities, home
appliances, office and medical equipment, all public and private transportation, semiconductors,
batteries, fiber optics, nanotechnology, multimedia, information technology, and more. It also addresses
safety, EMC (electromagnetic compatibility), performance and the environment.
Making electrotechnology work…for all
The IEC promotes the global use of its International Standards by industry, regulators/policy
makers, research labs, testing laboratories, etc. and supports all forms of conformity assessment in
order to:
- simplify global trade

- facilitate broad market access and promote global market efficiency
- stimulate and focus innovation
- establish the conditions for the interoperability of electrical and electronic devices and systems of all
sizes and help improve their safety, efficiency and performance
- contribute to efficient economic and infrastructure development
- help improve human safety and health
- promote sustainable development and help protect the environment

The IEC in brief
IEC work directly responds to the needs of all stakeholders in all countries. IEC International
Standards take into account all sorts of differences (climate, geography, level of development). They
cover performance, interoperability and other criteria but always avoid being descriptive so as to
enable innovation.
Global reach
The IEC family counts 163 countries, of which 82 are Members and 81 Affiliates, which are developing
countries that participate free of charge in the IEC Affiliate Country Programme.
Each National Committee (one per member country) represents all national electrotechnical interests
at the global level in the IEC.
Facilitating world trade
IEC International Standards help remove or overcome many technical barriers that can hinder trade.
Together with conformity assessment they facilitate market access.
Today, products are no longer made in one country; they are made in the world with components
and parts that are manufactured in many different places. According to latest OECD (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development) and WTO (World Trade Organization) statistics electronic and
electrical components represent more than 60% of goods traded globally.
Markets are becoming more and more interdependent. For example, China is the world’s biggest
exporter of electronic goods but 40% of the components in these goods were first imported. In addition
to changing how trade statistics will be looked at in the future this also provides opportunities for
countries to increase their economic share in international trade.
Countries that adopt and use International Standards can more easily contribute to cross-border
collaboration on products on their way to being assembled. IEC International Standards facilitate the
demonstration of state-of-the art safety, quality, efficiency and interoperability.
With them, companies, regardless of size, are able to manufacture components, devices and systems
that can be sold anywhere in the world.
IEC International Standards are a core element of the WTO TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade)
Agreement. Most of the159 signatory states explicitly recognize that International Standards play a
critical role in improving industrial efficiency and developing world trade. Most of them look to
IEC International Standards as the basis for their policy and regulations in electrotechnology.
Conformity assessment
Manufacturers, more and more often, need to deliver proof to buyers, specifiers and increasingly
to regulators/government agencies that their products are safe, reliable and perform as expected.
Conformity assessment provides that proof.

The IEC in brief
IEC work supports all forms of conformity assessment. The IEC also administers three Conformity
Assessment Systems that represent the world’s largest working multilateral agreement. They are referred
to in the WTO TBT agreement and bring together more than 2 500 testing laboratories globally.
Each member of each System accepts conformity certificates and reports from all the other System
members. This eliminates duplication and saves time and money, allowing industry to reach markets
faster.
IEC’s Conformity Assessment Systems
IECEE System
IECEE (IEC System for Conformity Assessment of Electrotechnical Equipment and Components)
administers third party conformity testing and certification schemes that address the safety, quality,
efficiency and overall performance of components and goods for the home, office or health facilities.
Members of the System issue test reports and certificates that are mutually accepted by all other
members of the System. This eliminates duplication and saves time and money.
The IECEE is also the exclusive issuer of the PV Quality Mark for PV components and the PV Quality Seal
for PV systems. They are the universally recognized validation of the quality of photovoltaic products.
IECEE operates the CB (Certification Body) Scheme and the Full Certification Scheme which includes
factory inspections. The IECEE website provides a complete list of product categories: www.iecee.org
IECEx System
IECEx (IEC System for Certification to Standards relating to Equipment for use in Explosive Atmospheres)
provides certification for areas where there is a risk of fire and/or explosions due to flammable gases,
liquids and dusts (Ex areas).
Ex areas are a part of almost every industry, from transport, food production, and textiles to petroleum
and mining. IECEx covers the broad spectrum of devices, systems and services used in explosive
environments and it verifies their conformity to International Standards.
The System addresses inspection (location and other), installation, maintenance and repair of equipment
and systems, and assesses the competence of personnel working in this highly specialized area.
IECEx has been endorsed by the UN via the UNECE as the certification system for the assessment
of conformity in Ex areas. www.iecex.com
IECQ System
IECQ (IEC Quality Assessment System for Electronic Components) is a worldwide approval and
certification system that covers the supply, assembly, associated materials and processes of a large
variety of electronic components that are used in millions of devices and systems.
The IECQ Certification System provides manufacturers with independent verification that IEC International
Standards and other specifications were met by suppliers who hold IECQ certification.

The IEC in brief
The avionics, and increasingly other industries, depend on the IECQ Electronic Component
Management Plan to assess suppliers and safely manage their components’ supply chain while also
avoiding counterfeit merchandise. IECQ also allows manufacturers to more easily comply with
increasingly strict hazardous substances regulations.
IECQ operates five certification schemes: HSPM (Hazardous Substances Process Management), ECMP
(Electronic Component Management Plan), AP (Approved Process), AC (Approved Component) and ITL
(Independent Testing Laboratory). www.iecq.org
Who develops IEC Standards?
The NC (National Committee) is the Member of the IEC (one per country). NCs are a distinct entity that
are obligated to include all national stakeholders from the private and public sectors and to coordinate
and represent their needs at the global level in the IEC. Individuals or companies cannot be a member
of the IEC.
Close to 13 000 experts from industry, testing and research laboratories, governments, academia
and even consumer groups are sent by NCs to work on the global IEC platform in 173 TCs (Technical
Committees) and 1 200 working groups. They represent their country’s needs in terms of standardization
and conformity assessment in the IEC. Expert participation is handled by each individual NC. Interested
individuals can contact the NC in their country or, if a country is not a Member, the IEC Central Office
(info@iec.ch).
The starting point for any new IEC Standard generally lies with industry. When industry in a given
country requires a new Standard, they inform their NC, an organization the IEC has a liaison with, or
directly inform the IEC CEO.
Information about this new proposal is then circulated to all interested Members and if several of them are
willing to send experts, work begins within the relevant TC.
The TC prepares a draft and when consensus is reached, it is submitted to Full Members for
voting/commenting. Consensus doesn’t imply 100% agreement but requires that sustained opposition
on all fundamental issues has been overcome.
When the document has achieved a 2/3 majority it can be published as a voluntary consensus-based
IEC International Standard. A voluntary standard is one that can be used by any person or industry but
they are not required to do so..
IEC partner organizations
WTO
One of the IEC’s principal partners is the WTO, whose 150-plus central government members explicitly
recognize, through their TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) Agreement that IEC International Standards play
a critical role in improving industrial efficiency and helping to develop world trade.

The IEC in brief
International organizations
The IEC works closely with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and ITU (International
Telecommunication Union) as well as regional standardization organizations.
The IEC also has cooperation agreements with international organizations, including UNECE (United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe), WEF (World Electronic Forum), IEA (International Energy
Agency), WHO (World Health Organization), CIGRE (International Council on Large Electric Systems),
ILO (International Labour Office), IMO (International Maritime Organization), OIML (International
Organization of Legal Metrology), and hundreds more.
Governmental agencies
The IEC encourages industrializing nations to share in the benefits of joining in its work and liaises closely
with the IMF (International Monetary Fund), EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development),
the World Bank, and the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).
Regional partners
The IEC works to achieve harmonization of standards among regional standardization organizations,
such as CANENA (Council for Harmonization of Electrotechnical Standards of the Nations of the
Americas), CENELEC, COPANT (the Pan American Standards Commission), EASC (the Euroasian
Interstate Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification), ETSI (European Telecommunications
Standards Institute) and PASC (Pacific Area Standards Congress). A joint working agreement exists
with CENELEC and through CENELEC, close to 80% of European Standards are identical or based
on IEC International Standards.
For further information
IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission)
3, rue de Varembé, PO Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland

Telephone: +41 22 919 0211 E-mail: info@iec.ch
www.iec.ch

The IEEE in brief
IEEE is the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and
excellence for the benefit of humanity. IEEE and its members inspire a global community through its highly
cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities.
IEEE has:
• more than 425,000 members in more than 160 countries; more than 50 percent of whom are from
outside the United States;
• more than 116,000 student members;
• 333 sections in 10 geographic regions worldwide;
• 2,195 chapters that unite local members with similar technical interests;
• 2,354 student branches at colleges and universities in 80 countries;
• 800 student branch chapters of IEEE technical societies; and
• 428 affinity groups - IEEE Affinity Groups are non-technical sub-units of one or more Sections or a
Council. The Affinity Group patent entities are the IEEE-USA Consultants’ Network, Graduates of the
Last Decade (GOLD), Women in Engineering (WIE) and Life Members (LM).
IEEE:
• has 38 societies and 7 technical councils representing the wide range of IEEE technical interests;
• has more than 3 million documents in the IEEE Xplore Digital Library with more than 8 million
downloads each month;
• has more than 1,400 standards and projects under development;
• publishes more than 160 transactions, journals and magazines;
• sponsors more than 1,300 conferences in 80 countries while:
• partnering with more than 1,000 non-IEEE entities globally;
• attracting more than 400,000 conference attendees; and
• publishing more than 1,200 conference proceedings via IEEE Xplore.
IEEE Mission - IEEE’s core purpose is to foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefit
of humanity.
Vision - IEEE will be essential to the global technical community and to technical professionals
everywhere, and be universally recognized for the contributions of technology and of technical
professionals in improving global conditions.
About the IEEE Standards Association
The IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) is a leading consensus building organization that nurtures,
develops and advances global technologies, through IEEE. We bring together a broad range of
individuals and organizations from a wide range of technical and geographic points of origin to facilitate
standards development and standards related collaboration. With collaborative thought leaders in more

The IEEE in brief
than 160 countries, we promote innovation, enable the creation and expansion of international markets
and help protect health and public safety. Collectively, our work drives the functionality, capabilities and
interoperability of a wide range of products and services that transform the way people live, work and
communicate.
IEEE Standards Association provides support services across standards

development
We support every stage of the standards development lifecycle with management and implementation
services that meet the unique needs of working groups, standards-related committees and organizations.
From strategic consultative guidance to the provision of tactical support, IEEE Professional Services
help drive forward momentum and fuel rapid success. Our seasoned professionals participate, provide
guidance and suggest approaches, helping ensure that key outputs and documentation conform to
requirements, and driving efficient production of world-class solutions and standards.
• Strategic Project Management - End-to-end guidance, facilitation and tactical development

support
• Meeting Planning & Support - Meeting planning, facilitation and staff attendance at key
face-to-face meetings
• Process Management - Consultative services that ensure compliance to due process, openness
and balance requirements
• Development Support - Forging consensus, document review, pre and post-approval editing and
publication
• Pre-Paid Standards Distribution “IEEE Get Program” - No-cost delivery of approved standards
(e.g. GET IEEE 2600)
• Financial Management - Procurement of third-party support and provision of treasury services
• Public Relations Support - Media and press interfacing, creation and management of press
releases and comprehensive backgrounders
• Website Management- Public and private website hosting, development and maintenance,
including email management
• Technology Support - Turnkey solutions and custom tool development to support collaboration
and consensus activities
The standard development lifecycle
IEEE Standards are developed using a time-tested,

effective and trusted process that is easily explained in
Maintaining
a six stage lifecycle diagram. the Standard Initiating the Project
Standards are published documents that establish

specifications and procedures designed to maximize Gaining Final Mobilizing the
Approval Working Group
the reliability of the materials, products, methods,
and/or services people use every day. Standards
address a range of issues, including but not limited
Balloting the Drafting the
to various protocols to help maximize product Standard Standard
functionality and compatibility, facilitate interoperability
and support consumer safety and public health.

The IEEE in brief
IEEE standards follow a well-defined path from concept to completion, guided by a set of five basic principles:
due process, openness, consensus, balance and right of appeal. These imperatives ensure fairness and good
standards practice during the development cycle, and help validate approved standards. These operating
principles have special import for IEEE and the IEEE-SA because the U.S. Department of Justice has held
that standards organizations are responsible for the actions of their standards developers.
These principles are:
• Due process, which means having highly visible procedures for standards creation and following
them. Procedures are set by the IEEE-SA Standards Board, the IEEE Societies that sponsor
standards, and the working groups that actually formulate standards;
• Openness, which ensures all interested parties can participate actively in the IEEE standards
development process;
• Consensus, which holds that a clearly defined percentage of those in a balloting group vote to
approve a draft of a standard;
• Balance, which ensures that balloting groups include all interested parties and avoid an
overwhelming influence by any one party; and
• Right of appeal, which allows anyone to appeal a standards development decision at any point,
before or after a standard has been approved.
Governance and oversight of the IEEE-SA

The IEEE-SA is governed by the IEEE-SA Board of Governors (BOG) who are elected by
IEEE-SA Members. The President serves as the chair of the BOG and reports to the IEEE Board of
Directors as the representative for the IEEE-SA. In short, the BOG directs the operation of the IEEE-SA,
including financial oversight and operational management.
The BOG establishes the guidelines for the operation of the IEEE-SA and has many documented rules,
procedures and governance policies.
The BOG is beholden to the IEEE Bylaws and maintains the established policies and procedures for the
operation of the IEEE-SA in the IEEE-SA Operations Manual.
Governance and oversight for the IEEE Standards Development Process

The IEEE-SA Standards Board reports directly to the IEEE-SA BOG, and oversees
the IEEE standards development process. Standards Board members are appointed by the BOG
and must be IEEE-SA members in good standing.
In alignment with the IEEE-SA Operations Manual and its own Bylaws, the Standards Board
oversees the process and policies that support standards development. It also provides guidelines for
the development of individual and entity-driven standards to ensure a fair and equitable process.
IEEE Standards Association and its partners
Our International Program encourages worldwide collaboration and helps ensure the effectiveness and
high visibility of International Standards within IEEE and the global community.
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

The IEEE in brief
• ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC JTC 1)

• International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
- ITU-Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D)
- ITU-Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R)
- ITU-Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
IEEE (MOU) Memoranda of Understanding

The IEEE-SA MOU program was established to promote international standards activities and foster
cooperation with standards organizations around the world. This program complements the strong
cooperative relationships IEEE-SA has with ISO, IEC, and ITU by strengthening relationships with national
and regional organizations.
MOU Participants
• The Arab ICT Organization
• China Communications Standards Association (CCSA)
• China Electronics Standardization Institute
• China National Institute of Standardization
• Cigre - International Council on Large Electric Systems
• European Telecommunications Standards Institute
List of Mapped Liaison Relationships

• Korean Agency for Technology and Standards
• Korea Electric Association
• Korea Electronics Association
• Korean Society of Automotive Engineers
• South African Bureau of Standards
• The Standards Institution of Israel (SII)
• Telecommunications Technology Association
• Telecommunications Technology Committee
For further information
IEEE
445 Hoes Lane

Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA
Phone: +1 732 981 0060
www.ieee.org
IEEE Standards Association

standards.ieee.org

®
INTERNATIONAL The Institute of

ELECTROTECHNICAL Electrical and Electronics
COMMISSION Engineers, Inc.
3, rue de Varembé 445 Hoes Lane,

PO Box 131 Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141
CH-1211 Geneva 20 USA
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 919 02 11 Phone: +1 732 981 0060

info@iec.ch Fax: +1 732 562 1571
www.iec.ch stds-info@ieee.org
www.standards.ieee.org
® Registered trademark of the International Electrotechnical

Commission
2013-04
Copyright © IEC/IEEE 2013

Iec Ieee Challenge 2012 LR

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Iec Ieee Challenge 2012 LR

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012

Winning papers from

IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012 1

Winning papers from

Please visit www.iec.ch for more information.

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 3

T +41 22 919 0211

Copyright © 2013 IEC, Geneva, Switzerland.

About the IEC ....................................................................................................................... 

Cloud Computing Standardization Insights from past standardization

The Benefits of Standards and Standardization in the German Electrical and

Bridging the divide with a three-way handshake

The IEC in brief .....................................................................................................................

The IEEE in brief ...................................................................................................................

IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012 

Electrical, electronic and related technologies – collectively known as electrotechnology – impact

IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012 

What was the IEC IEEE Challenge 2012?

Who was involved?

About the IEC

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 7

What was the IEC IEEE Challenge process?

Who was eligible to participate?

Theme and Style

Prize money: Total of $45 000

IEC Immediate Past President Jacques Régis

Paul Markillie, Innovation Editor at The Economist

• Analysis and demonstration of linkage between economic, social or environmental development

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 8

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 9

About the author

Ken Krechmer (krechmer@csrstds.com) is a lecturer at the University of

IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012 10

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 11

2 The beginnings of standardization

With measurement instruments, rigorous measurement standards became practical. A similar

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 12

In 1961 ISO/IEC JTC-1 established an important precedent by inviting ECMA to become a

3 Public and private reason

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 13

4 The politics of standardization

The standardization of cloud computing is accomplished in a committee which attempts to

4.1 Who is supporting the standardization?

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 14

Table 1 – Motivation of standardization participants.

Standardization participants Motivation

Creators Define the most desirable technology

Implementers/vendors Organizational goals (e.g., profit)

Users User requirements

Government Public reason

4.2 Where will the standardization apply?

4.3 When does the standardization occur?

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 15

Precursor product(s) life

idea Precursor product(s)

Figure 2. Products’ phases relative to standardization, when precursor products are

IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012 16

5 The standardization challenge for cloud computing

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 17

If a proprietary cloud computing service becomes successful, other commercial implementers,

Programmable cloud computing systems, developed by different implementers and standardized in

IEC-IEEE Challenge 2012 18

7 Meeting the challenge

About the IEC .......................................................................................................................

The IEC in brief .....................................................................................................................

The IEEE in brief ...................................................................................................................

IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012

IEC-IEEE CHALLENGE 2012