International digital standards: A case for the involvement of stakeholders in the ARIN region

The purpose of this paper is to help raise awareness about digital standards among the small, developing countries in the ARIN service region. In doing so, we start with an overview of what digital standards are and where they are developed at the international level. We then look briefly at the extent to which stakeholders from ARIN countries participate in several key international SDOs. Based on the findings, we argue in favour of more participation from these countries in international standard-setting.

Este artículo está disponible en español.

Introduction

Digital standards are all around us, telling our mobile phones how to connect to electronic communication networks, describing security procedures for internet of things (IoT) devices, and ensuring that we can exchange emails even if we use different email clients. Standards describe rules, requirements, and guidelines for how technologies, products, and services are developed and function. They outline repeatable ways of doing something and, as such, foster interoperability, while also enabling quality of service. 

Standards are developed at the national, regional, and international levels. Of particular importance for the digital field – given the global nature of the digital economy – are international standards. These are developed within a broad range of organizations – such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) – typically through consensus-driven processes where various actors contribute their views and defend their interests (be they manufacturers, sellers, trade associations, governmental entities, etc.). 

Although participation in international standards development organizations (SDOs) is generally open to anyone interested (either directly or through national SDOs), it is usually stakeholders from large and developed countries that are mostly present in this ecosystem. The so-called standardization gap – the imbalance in participation in international standardization, in particular between developed and developing countries – is a challenge recognized by SDOs themselves. And it is very visible if we look at how countries in the region serviced by the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) participate in the development of international standards. While stakeholders from the USA and Canada are highly active in standardization processes (even if with differing levels of engagement over the years, from one organization to another), there is very little (if any) participation from other countries in the region.

Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to help raise awareness about digital standards among the small, developing countries in the ARIN service region. In doing so, we start with an overview of what digital standards are and where they are developed at the international level. We then look briefly at the extent to which stakeholders from ARIN countries participate in several key international SDOs. Based on the findings, we argue in favor of more participation from these countries in international standard-setting. 

As arguments, we explain that digital standards are relevant not only from a technical point of view; they also have broader economic, social, and political implications. As such, standards (should) matter, not only for those who develop them, but for the broader tech sector (the one developing, managing, and selling technologies/infrastructures), as well as governments and end users. Moreover, given the relevance of standards for the seamless functioning of digital technologies, products, and services when used by consumers around the world, it is important that the development of such standards reflects the views and interests of as many stakeholders as possible, from both developed and developing countries.

We end the paper with a series of recommendations that could lead to the more active engagement of developing countries and their stakeholders in the setting of international standards for digital technologies. These range from awareness raising and capacity development initiatives, to leveraging the role of regional SDOs in facilitating the participation of their members in international SDOs.

About digital standards

At first sight, standards are not the most engaging topic. But they do matter. From uniform brick sizes in Ancient Egypt and coinage in the Roman Empire (Barrios Villarreal, 2018), to today’s protocols that make the internet work, standards function as agreed-upon rules or guidelines that tell us how to do something, fostering a coordinated approach. 

There are various definitions of standards. ISO and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) – two key SDOs – define a standard as a ‘document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree or order in a given context’ (ISO/IEC, 2004). Underlining the multistakeholder nature of standards development processes, ISO further notes that standards are ‘the distilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter and who know the needs of the organizations they represent – people such as manufacturers, sellers, buyers, customers, trade associations, users or regulators’ (ISO, no date). 

The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) describes a standard as a technical document ‘designed to be used as a rule, guideline or definition. It is a consensus-built, repeatable way of doing something’ (CEN, no date). According to the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), standards ‘establish accepted practices, technical requirements, and terminologies for diverse fields’ (SCC, no date). 

Although invisible for most of us, standards exist in every field, including healthcare, aerospace, construction, and quality management. Standards for digital technologies – digital standards – are all around us, enabling devices to interact with each other, allowing us to connect to mobile networks, and facilitating the exchange of information. 

Digital standards cover a wide range of technologies and related infrastructures, devices, applications, and services. For instance, technical internet standards form the infrastructure that makes the internet work. Examples include the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) – two protocols that enable the exchange of data via the internet; various standards related to the domain name system (DNS), such as DNSSEC – DNS security extensions that help secure data exchanges; and the secure sockets layer (SSL) and its successor, the transport layer security (TLS), dedicated to protecting the security of internet connections. 

Web standards – related to the world wide web – provide specifications for the development and functioning of online content and applications to ensure that they are accessible across devices and configurations. Some of the most widely used web standards are HyperText Markup Language (HTML), a plain text language that uses tags to define the structure of documents; eXtensible Markup Language (XML), another type of language used for sharing structured information; and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), a language used in conjunction with HTML to control the presentation of web pages (Geneva Internet Platform, no date). 

Standards for networks and infrastructures cover technologies and architectures for mobile networks (e.g. 3G, 4G, 5G), broadband networks, and next-generation networks (e.g. cloud computing networks), to name just a few. Standards for advanced technologies are increasingly being developed in areas such as the IoT, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, nanotechnologies, additive manufacturing, and quantum technologies. Other examples of digital standards include security standards, environment-related standards, and multimedia standards (e.g. standards for videoconferencing systems or internet protocol television (IPTV) services).Standards are, in general, voluntary. Market players chose to adhere to certain standards depending on their goals and interests. For instance, WiFi standards are commonly integrated into mobile phones, tablets, and laptops; the producers of these devices are not required to embed such standards, but they do so to ensure that their devices can connect to local networks. Depending on the extent to which they are used across the industry, some standards become highly successful, while others barely make it to the market (if at all). In addition, it is not uncommon to have multiple standards covering the same issue; in such cases, success is driven by market forces, competition, and consumer choice. Sometimes similar standards function in parallel; other times only one standard wins. 

Companies are not always interested in the development or implementation of standards. This is the case, for instance, with certain apps for mobile devices. It is relatively easy for companies to develop their own solutions at a proprietary level and then put them on the market, without being interested in facilitating interoperability with similar solutions. The end result is the creation of walled gardens where users of certain apps cannot interact with users of similar apps. 

There are instances when standards can be made mandatory. In China, for example, some standards are mandatory from the offset; companies are required to follow them. In other jurisdictions (e.g. EU countries, Canada, the USA), standards become mandatory when certain laws or regulations require compliance with them. Sometimes regulations refer to certain standards to be followed as a way to demonstrate compliance: although the standards are not mandatory as such, companies are encouraged to follow them as a way to comply with the regulation. 

Another distinction is between de facto and de jure standards. De facto standards are not formally adopted by SDOs. They emerge through market uptake and become widely used usually because they are seen as the most efficient and/or reliable in their field (den Uijl, 2015). Some examples are the QWERTY keyboard and the MP3 format for audio files. De jure standards are developed and adopted within the framework of SDOs such as ISO or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Over time, de facto standards can become de jure standards. This was the case with HTML and Adobe’s Portable Document Format (PDF), initially accepted as de facto standards, and later adopted as de jure standards by ISO (Bryer et al., 2011). 

Standards follow technological progress. While some standards may become completely obsolete, others evolve over time. Therefore most SDOs have review processes in place for the standards they develop. ISO and IEC standards, for instance, are reviewed every 3–5 years to ensure that they are still relevant. 

International digital standards

Where and how international digital standards are developed

Standards are developed and adopted at national, regional, and international level. At the national level, SDOs usually bring together experts from various stakeholder groups (e.g. governmental agencies, private companies, research institutes, academia, consumer organizations) to elaborate standards in various fields. 

Here an important role is played by the so-called national SDOs,¹Other terms used for national SDOs – which are typically mandated to participate in international SDOs, such as ISO and IEC – include national (standards) bodies and national (standards) committees. which either develop national standards themselves (examples include the British Standards Institution and the German Institute for Standardisation) or oversee the development of such standards by various accredited standards bodies (the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and SCC function by this model). See Annex 1 for a list of national SDOs in the ARIN service region. 

Regional SDOs are usually focused on the development of regional standards. CEN, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) develop standards for the EU region, while the CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality (CROSQ) facilitates the development of regional standards across the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Another goal of regional organizations is to facilitate cooperation between national SDOs, encourage the harmonization of national standards, and support their development; one example of such organization is the Pan American Standards Commission – COPANT.

Beyond national and regional standards, international standards are particularly important because they facilitate technological interoperability and international trade, key elements for the smooth functioning of the borderless digital economy. International digital standards are developed by a multitude of organizations. 

Some are formal SDOs, recognized as such by national or international authorities (ITU, 2014). The IEC and ISO are included in this category. The IEC develops standards for electrical and electronic technologies, such as fiber optics and cables, smart energy, IoT, and AI, whereas ISO’s much wider scope includes, among others, the development of standards for e-commerce, robotics, intelligent transport systems, and security. ISO and the IEC have a joint technical committee (JTC) focused on information technology – ISO/IEC JTC1. Within this JTC, 22 technical committees (TCs) – 20 serviced by ISO and 2 by the IEC – develop standards related to cybersecurity and privacy protection, data management and interchange, biometrics, cloud computing and distributed platforms, IoT and digital twins, and AI, among others. 

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is another formal SDO. An intergovernmental organization at its core, ITU’s work in standards development largely happens within its Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). ITU-T focuses on standards for various fields of international telecommunications and ICTs, from telecommunication protocols and future networks to smart cities and security. The Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) also carries out some specific standardization work related to radiocommunication systems. 

Quasi-formal SDOs are not officially recognized by national or supra-national authorities, but they are largely similar to formal SDOs in how they run and how they are organized. The best-known SDOs that develop digital standards and are usually included in this category are IEEE, which, through its Standards Association (IEEE SA) develops standards related to computer technology, consumer electronics, cybersecurity, green and clean technology, and wired and wireless communications, among other; the IETF, which develops standards for the internet; the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which is dedicated to standards for the world wide web; and the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), which focuses on standards for cellular (mobile) telecommunications technologies, including radio access, core networks, and service capabilities. 

These organizations have different membership structures, as well as their own rules and procedures for developing and approving standards (Table 1). There are, however, a series of principles that tend to be generally applied across these organizations, such as consensus,²Although consensus tends to be the preferred rule for the adoption of standards, voting is usually also involved, especially when consensus cannot be reached. transparency, openness, and due process. 

The digital standardization landscape also includes a wide range of industry forums and consortia, usually formed by private sector entities interested in developing specific standards to meet their common needs. The industry sometimes prefers to work in such settings because they are seen as ‘less bureaucratic and more efficient in reacting to market needs’ (Pohlmann, 2014). Examples include the Broadband Forum (develops broadband network specifications); the LoRa Alliance (worked on the LoRaWan specification – a low-power, wide area networking protocol); the Connectivity Standards Alliance (focused on IoT technology standards); and the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) (works on various standards related to data exchange, cybersecurity, blockchain, etc.).³The portal consortiuminfo.org offers a comprehensive overview of the multitude of industry consortia involved in standardization work.

Table 1. Key SDOs involved in the development of digital standards

Complexity and dynamism on the digital standardization landscape

Complexity

As shown before, the digital standardization landscape is a complex one, composed of a multitude of organizations and forums with diverse membership structures and working methods. Actors typically choose the SDOs to get involved in based on their interests, be they economic, geopolitical, etc.

Another element that adds to the complexity of the digital standardization landscape relates to the fact that there are sometimes overlaps in the work of SDOs, with efforts to standardize the same technology (or various aspects of it) carried out across multiple organizations. For instance, standards for various aspects of AI are currently being developed at ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T. Issues related to internet protocols and architectures are discussed not only at the IETF (where the TCP/IP suite originates), but also at ETSI (for instance, within an Industry Specification Group on Non-IP Networking) and ITU-T (one example being the heated debates around the proposal put forward by Chinese actors in 2019 that ITU-T takes up work on developing a new protocol – the now famous ‘New IP’ proposal⁸For details about the New IP and related work, see the report The geopolitics of digital standards: China’s role in standard-setting organisations, published in December 2021 by DiploFoundation/Geneva Internet Platforms and Multilateral Dialogue Konrad Adenauer Foundation Geneva (Teleanu, 2021).).

While such overlaps are somewhat natural, they also create the space for the so-called practice of forum shopping, when actors try to identify the places where their standard proposals stand a better chance of being approved. Sometimes this also means that the same actor puts forward the same proposal (or slightly different versions of it) within different SDOs. Other times different actors advance similar proposals in different SDOs, which often results in complaints about the duplication of work and efforts to block each other’s proposals.

SDOs typically try to address such challenges through various mechanisms. For instance, due process and strong consensus rules are meant to prevent actors from picking one organization over others because it might be easier to get a standard approved there. Cooperation between SDOs is another way to avoid overlaps. One example is the World Standards Cooperation – a framework under which the IEC, ISO, and ITU cooperate through mechanisms such as the Standards Programme Coordination Group, which enables some level of coordination of both existing and new fields of technical activities, to avoid conflicting requirements or overlaps (World Standards Cooperation, no date). Other examples of cooperation include liaisons and joint technical groups focused on the co-developed of standards (e.g. ISO/IEC JTC1 and ITU-T–IETF liaisons). 

Dynamism

The dynamism of the digital standardization landscape is reflected both in what is being standardized and who is involved in standardization. 

As digital technologies evolve, new standards are being developed to cover them. Keeping up with the fast pace of technological progress is often a challenge for standardization processes, as SDOs have to balance speed with the need to ensure due process and the integrity of the work.

New technologies being standardized also means that new actors constantly enter the standardization landscape, while other actors become less involved or exit the space completely. For instance, telecom operators like BT and AT&T, or vendors like Nortel, Siemens, and Sun – once very active in standardization processes – have reduced their participation over the years. Others, like Ericsson and Nokia, continue to be actively involved as they compete on the mobile network equipment markets with relatively newer actors like Huawei. And companies that were largely unheard of in the 1980s and 1990s – such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google – are now stepping up their participation in certain standardization processes.

State and non-state actors participate in international standardization driven by economic and/or geopolitical interests. As these interests change, so does their involvement in SDOs. Moreover, the international landscape for digital standardization also reflects the changing competition landscape in certain industries. This was illustrated by the growing involvement of Asian actors (initially from Japan and the Republic of Korea, and later from China) in SDOs starting the 1990s, when the region’s technological and economic power began to grow. At the IETF, for instance, there were barely any documents authored by Chinese actors in early 2000, while most contributions came from the USA. Over the years, the number of document authors from China increased (from 1 in 2000 to 374 in 2021), while the number of document authors from the USA decreased (from 1036 in 2000 to 520 in 2021) (IETF, no date).

ARIN countries’ participation in key SDOs

Status quo

The service region covered by ARIN includes Canada, the USA, and several countries and territories in the Caribbean and the North Atlantic.⁹A total of 11 countries and 18 territories. A look at how the region is represented in several key SDOs shows that (a) Canada and the USA are very active in the development of international standards for digital technologies, and (b) there is very little (if any) representation from other ARIN countries.¹⁰For this paper, the term ‘ARIN country’ denotes a country within the ARIN service region. 

At ISO, Canada and the USA – through their national SDOs – are among the top 20 most active countries by the number of TCs and SCs they participate in fully (USA – 9th place, Canada – 18th place).

The USA also has the second-highest number of secretariat positions within TCs and SCs (12.8%) – after Germany (17.1%); Canada comes in 11th place (2.1%). An analysis of digital-related TCs and SCs (a total of 100 committees) shows that the USA also holds the highest number of secretariat positions – 24%; Canada comes in 10th place – 2%.¹¹Most of the statistical data included in this section is based on Teleanu, 2021.

The national SDOs of four other ARIN countries are full ISO members: Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, and Saint Lucia. The SDOs of Antigua and Barbuda and of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have the status of subscriber member, while Dominica and Saint Kitts and Nevis are correspondent members (Figure 1).¹²Full, correspondent, and subscriber members all have the right to participate in developing international standards. Differences appear when it comes to participating in developing policies, governing the organization, or selling ISO standards (ISO, 2015).

Figure 1. ARIN countries: Participation in ISO TCs and SCs, including Secretariat positions held (January 2022)

The only ARIN countries represented in the IEC are Canada and the USA. They both are among the top 20 most active countries by the number of TCs and SCs they participate in (USA – 5th place, Canada – 18th place). The USA also holds the second largest number of secretariat (13.9%) and chair (14.1%) positions for TCs and SCs, after Germany. Canada comes in 11th place for both secretariat and chair roles (2 each). 

All ARIN countries have representation at ITU. In most cases, this representation is ensured by ministries with responsibilities for electronic communications/ICTs and/or regulatory authorities in the field. It is unclear though to what extent these state institutions participate in standardization work at ITU-T. Canada, Jamaica, and the USA are the only three countries with ITU-T members: 11 for Canada,   1 for Jamaica (Digicel Group), and 83 for the USA (Figure 2). Even though the USA has the largest number of ITU-T members, these entities are not particularly active in holding leadership positions within SGs/WPs: 1 SG chair, out of 11; 3 SG vice-chairs (3.1% of all such positions); 5% of all rapporteur roles (4th place). 

Canada and the USA are the only ARIN countries with participation in the IETF, 3GPP, and W3C. IETF stats show that most document authors are from the USA, with Canada coming in 7th place. At 3GPP, the USA has the second largest number of individual members (95, 12.4%), after China (147, 19.2%); Canada occupies the 14th place (10 members, 1.3%). The USA is also the country with the largest number of W3C members (170, 37.3%); Canada occupies the 6th place (19, 4.2%).

Figure 2. ITU members by ARIN country (January 2022) 

Arguments for a more active involvement: Why standards matter

These findings are not necessarily surprising, given that most ARIN nations are small, developing countries, with multiple competing priorities when it comes to the allocation of financial resources. Some may also argue that there is little interest in international standardization because there is little digital industry active in or originating from those countries. 

But digital standards are not and should not be relevant only for tech companies, or only for developed nations. Given the borderless nature of the digital space, and the fact that digital standards are reflected in products and services used around the world, it is important that the development of standards integrates views and interests from as many stakeholders as possible. Moreover, standards are not only about technology or about the competition between global market players. They also have relevance for public policy, geopolitics, and human rights. In this section, we look at the multiple implications of standards, give concrete examples, and list types of actors for which standards are relevant.

Technical implications 

Standards provide a common language that facilitate interoperability, allowing technologies to interact with each other. They ensure that devices and applications are developed using the same rules and communication protocols, and that they can exchange data in compatible formats. Beyond interoperability, standards also foster quality of service and quality of experience, as well as safety and security.

Economic implications

Standards support innovation and help develop and sustain competitiveness, thus the ability to contribute to economic growth. When adopted and implemented at the international level, standards facilitate global trade by opening the doors for companies to new markets and helping avoid discrepancies between trade partners. Well-functioning global standards are therefore beneficial for both big players and smaller economies, allowing companies to export everywhere, under as fair competition terms as possible. 

The relevance of international standards for trade was recognized by the World Trade Organization (WTO), whose Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) advises governments to use international standards as a basis for regulation (WTO, 1994). Although the WTO does not specify what is meant by international standards, the standards developed by the IEC, ISO, and ITU are generally understood as relevant in the context of the TBT Agreement. 

What this means in practice is that countries should not place trade barriers on technologies that comply with such standards. This makes these standards particularly relevant for companies that want to export their products, as well as for governments that want to ensure their standards and regulations do not constitute technical barriers to trade.

Standards are also relevant from a competition point of view. For instance, if companies are able to have their technology reflected in international standards, this could give them a market advantage. In addition, the economic relevance of standards is reflected by the fact that many technologies that are essential parts of a standard are patented. Companies that own these standard-essential patents (SEPs) can request royalties/licensing fees for their use; ¹³This usually happens under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, a requirement that SDOs generally place on companies participating in standardization work. as such, the integration of SEPs into standards could generate significant revenues for the patent owner (Pohlmann and Blind, 2020).