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."

Comments

If you believe so

[gazbo]

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?

Weird

[bored_SuSE_user]

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....

Lobbyism

[broothal]

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.

ebxml and bcf are on a somewhat different level

[Reinout]

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 :-)

Re:This is not surprising

[Elvisisdead]

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.

maybe the UN...

[ajagci]

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.

Why are they working on this

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are all up in arms about how Microsoft is corrupting the process and buying people. But I think that misses the point. Why is the UN working on international business practices? Who asked them to? Why do we need it?

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?

Re:yes, why not?

[nycsubway]

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!

Re:Double edged Sword

[klosskorban]

How much has Linux Offered?? Hello! Think about it, They have offered everything! Free now, free later take all you want, displace $500 billion in proprietary software if you want no problem, its still free, while your there take a little more, no problem, want some more ? sure help yourself.