Slashdot Mirror
Is Microsoft Paying To Influence UN Standards?
PizzaFace writes "Microsoft is reported to be spending strategically to influence the United Nations' standards for business data exchange. A UN standards-setting body, UN/CEFACT, and an industry-standards group, OASIS, had developed an open standard format for data interchange, called ebXML. Microsoft hired two people from UN/CEFACT, and a few months later the body decided to stop working on ebXML and instead to work on a Business Collaboration Framework for web services, promoted by Microsoft and IBM. Microsoft then paid for three UN committee members to travel to six countries to promote the BCF."
Yes. They pay to influence the USA standards; don't you think they pay them too?
Then don't you think the real heart of the problem is that the standards boards consist of people of such negotiable ethics and opinions?
The article mentions that the work on the Open XML standard was complete and their website shows that this standard will be used in the 'Business Colloboration Model'....so where is the problem?
The site doesn't mention Windows or Windows-based systems anywhere, nor does it mention Microsoft. With IBM so heavily supporting *nix based systems, I doubt MS can wriggle their way into making the standards supported only on their platform, otherwise it's not really a standard....
Bored? http://www.dodgybloke.co.uk
Shocker! Big business spends money to try and make more money! And some of the spending is a little grey, ethically and morally speaking!
Isn't this supposed to be a news site?
--
This is not flamebait or trolling (and these are not the droids you seek). This is commentary, done in a sarcastic tone. Posting tiny examples of the prevalence of corporate influence in our world is a waste of time.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Microsoft and senior UN officials reply that the accusation is false, saying that the company's contributions were relatively modest, complied with UN guidelines and did not unduly influence decision-making within the body. .
Like they ever would say something like "yes we are behaving like corrupt colombian Mobsters". Standars are always a wrestling match between companies trying to impose their technology, who doesnt want everyone to need what you created and know best how to do!.
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
Please enlighten me as to why this is news? This happens every day! It's called lobbying. Is it because it's the mother of all evil megacorps that's doing the lobbying?
Here's wikipedia's definition of lobyism.
This is not especially surprising, considering the number of large businesses that lobby and otherwise bride their way through government.
I know you are probably just writing about the long arm of Microsoft's loot, but it is important to note that the UN is NOT a government entity. It is a forum for governments to sit down and collaborate on various issues. It has no authority (thank God). It doesn't make laws (thanks again, God).
Is the UN really much of a controlling body anymore. The more time goes on the more it is shown to be ineffective. Does anyone really listen to them anymore?
Evolution or ID?
Reading the article (yes, I did :-), it didn't seem so clear-cut to me. In the article, ebxml and bcf are placed in front of eachother as direct competitors.
:-)
From an ebXML Business Process Specification Schema announcement and a BCF faq I figured that ebxml provides a number of services (like repositories) and a number of high-level xml specifications.
The first item, services, seems to do some of the same things as soap, uddl, etc, the webservices stuff (1). This seems to be the major area where IBM and MS try to convince people to use their (webservices) solutions instead of the ebxml solutions.
The second item , the high-level xml specifications, seems to lack a few things that weren't included in ebxml proper, like the "UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology -- Meta Model". These (or solutions based on it) are now developed separately by the UN under the name of BCF. But this is more of a layer building upon the existing ebxml work.
So: ebxml's services see some flak from webservices (ibm+ms) and the UN acknowledges that this is a possible alternative implementation. On the other hand, the UN builds upon ebxml by adding the BCF layer, making it more useful.
At least, that's my guess from the info!
Reinout
p.s. 1): for REST-proponents: I like the REST approach more than the SOAP one
Reinout van Rees
I'm known for my rather critical attitude towards the US but if there was a general opinion that MS was buying favour with US politicians then I think it will be a lot worse in the international sphere as the price of a third world ignoramus sitting in some UN committe panel is certainly not higher than that of a corrupt US politician.
Agreed that this is not surprising. There are tons of lobbying groups that do this kind of thing every year. One of the bigger trips each year is the "Korea trip" for congressional aides.
Essentially, the S. Korean chamber of commerce gets together and flies around 20 staffers over for 10 days in 5 star hotels, and all-expenses paid fun. Sure, they tour some factories and hear some presentations, but it's mainly a free vacation. Lots of companies/lobbying gropus do similar trips within the US, as well. Sugar cane growers will take staffers to south Florida. The tobacco lobby takes folks to resorts in NC. The military lets military issues staffers stay on board aircraft carriers, etc.
In this particular instance, MS is playing by the well-established rules for this type of thing.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
Maybe you haven't noticed, but these kind of things happen ALL the time. Sadly it is called "Capitalism" and your new found anger at MS is a bit misplaced here. Start with being angry at politicains for introducing this kind of behavior and accepting money to drive the whims of big cooperations.
The world is in open moral collapse - not to mention denial.
Same as it always was, really, but with scantier drapes.
And no-one seems interested in ( i.e.: scared into ) checks and balances of any sort.
The even minimally ethical, with hope or intent for an even minimally decent future for humanity, or the world, have less places to gather in (on, around) - or hide.
Raw, naked, ruthless, mindless, hell-bent power seems to the order of the day. Klingons with corny western accents, eh ? Well, well. Who'd a thunk it ? And everyone's welcoming them like there was no tomorry, too. >:-|
shouldn't get involved in the definition of XML standards at all. After all, we already have several excellent international, neutral standards bodies that worry about this sort of thing.
The UN should work on foster better relations between countries. They should work on eliminating all WMDs (even those in the first world) They should cure hunger and famine and disesase and educate the world. They should work toward universal human rights. And when they have accomlished that, disband.
We don't need a world body to help business, they can do that perfectly well on their own. And to do so, only opens up the possibility of corruption with no concievable gain. Why is even as single penny of UN money or a single second of UN time going to this effort when much more pressing needs exist?
obvious, expected, business as usual, not worhty of a headline, etc... But I think it's worthwhile to point this stuff out, software companies influencing political bodies are bad for everyone, equally bad are political bodies controlling software, think of it as a desperately needed techno-geek seperation of church and state. Maybe if people would take this more serioulsy instead of accepting that this is "the way it is" things might change.
Remember - The U.N. does not answer to any voter in the world. Instead, the U.N. answers to... politicians!
6 w0dDykJ: 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1074281/posts+Saddam%2 7s+Global+Payroll&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
That's why the U.N. is such a thoroughly corrupted entity. The U.N. enjoys a multi-billion dollar budget that is in theory controlled by the governments of a few large country... but in reality, the politicians from those country come and go, and in the end, the U.N. does not really answer to any one.
Lack of oversight over a multibillion dollar budget... yeah! That's the ticket!
Look a this Wall Street Journal article about Kofi Annan deep-sixing the corruption investigation of his best-buddy at the U.N. (Annan's Assistant Secretary General & friend Benon Sevan pocketed millions from Irak).
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Yxb3
"Is the UN much of a controlling body anymore? Not while it's being abused and misused by US policymakers."
Lets be honest. It isn't just being misused by US policymakers. There are many other countries misusing it too.
Evolution or ID?
I worked for an insurance company when it was in the process of merging with a bank in the largest merger in history in the US. The merged company became Citigroup. The only problem with the merger was that there were laws preventing insurance companies from merging with banks.
As the merger went along, the attitude was that 'were waiting to get the appropriate legislation passed'. It was very matter of fact, that they knew the laws were going to change to allow them to merge... because they changed them!
Big companies have influence!
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
Hmm...
Attempted analogy: a donation from Microsoft builds dependency much in the same way as a drug dealer builds dependency. The recipient would be better off getting nothing, instead building self-sufficiency with free software technologies.
Donating to free software is IMHO far more valuable.
Need help finding the flow? http://www.myspace.com/naturalismandbalance
Corruption is a huge problem all over Africa. It is a common phenomena in under-developed nations were business laws are weak. It is even found on a large scale in some very developed countries (France and Italy are good examples, while USA has its fair share). Corruption comes in many disguises, from money under the table, to advanced lawyer set up money schemes.
Now, what did your "wife" see? And this corruption she saw, was it UN staff taking money illegally? If she has some good example or even proofs of this, I am sure many neo-cons wants to hear about it. The UN is one of the more scrutinized organizations in the world and any proof of misconduct will be used against it.
You sound like a true astro-turfer to me and I doubt you or your family have worked inside the UN. Remember that the U.N.s Oil for Food program was set up by the USA after the first Gulf war and the UN did the best it could with the rules for the program set down. And it seems to have worked pretty well in the way that Saddam was not able to get new or maintain his old WMD. It was so successful that Saddam spend all his energy trying to undermind the program. Now, show some proof instead of neo-con hate speech that the Oil for food program was a UN and France conspiracy. And please, add some more substance to your FUD about UN in Africa. I am sure your "wife" can give some concrete examples.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
If the UN is so irrelevant and ineffective, why is the Bush administration begging the UN to clean up the election mess of the administration in Iraq? It is not like it is much at stake for them, just the re-election chances of chimp.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
The bulk of any large organization's workforce are paper pushers
...
What you call "paper pushers", and what they call (according to your good link) "Administration" etc. is indeed the main role of the UN. "Peace keeping" after wars and such is a lot of administration, management, logistics, police,
I was in Cambodia when they were organizing the first real elections after Pol Pot. Nobody was starving, and there was no need for emergency aid like food distribution (there was and still is need for medical care though). The job was to set up fair elections, and that certainly wasn't easy.
I don't know how the food situation is in East Timor, but I suspect that there also, food is not the main problem. The difficulty is helping to set up a decent civilian administration to run the country after decades of war.
etc. in other places.
What I want to say is that you cannot dismiss the work the UN does on the ground that it is "paper pushers" work. That's the work they are supposed to be doing. Now I'm sure there are many examples where it is badly done, or in an inefficient way, but from what I've seen they also definitely do manage to get good work done.
And even more direct emergency help like for refugees requires a lot of administrative office work.