Editorial: Standard procedure

20.03.2006
What would the IT industry be like without the entrenched institution of political lobbying? How much more worthy of our trust would it be?

I find I've been wondering about that a lot lately, especially since I have very little patience for the practice of lobbying in the first place.

There just seems to be something inherently unhealthy about any system that rewards deep pockets with influence and access.

I get especially antsy when I see those deep pockets being used to influence decisions on adopting technology standards. If there's any decision that should be made totally independent of self-serving vendor lobbyists, it's the adoption by a government or an international organization of a technology standard. Such decisions must be made on the basis of nothing other than what is in the best interests of the people being served by that body.

As I continue to monitor the controversy over Massachusetts' plan to adopt the OASIS OpenDocument format standard for office productivity applications, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that Microsoft will ultimately succeed in beating the state into submission. It's no secret that the Microsoft lobbying machine has pulled out all the stops to compel the state to abandon its initiative to adopt OpenDocument, a standard Microsoft clearly sees as a serious competitive threat. And given that Microsoft has virtually unlimited funds to throw at the challenge, it's difficult to imagine that those within the state's IT apparatus who continue to push the standard will prevail.

The Massachusetts case is something of a red flag. It makes me wonder how widespread and institutionalized the effort is on the part of technology vendors to influence standards-related decisions. In fact, I can't help but wonder what they're doing behind the scenes to sway the standards bodies themselves.