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."
I hardly think that this particular article rates as a big deal.
:)
All technical issues aside, if a damn UN standards-setting body is influenced in their decision by a couple of hotel stays and some plane tickets (which, they would have gotten anyway), then there is no hope for any of us - we might as well accept our clippy enhanced future now.
Hmmmm... or maybe there is - hell, if could raise $10 grand maybe I could get a new standard which lets me get master control over something.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
Yes. They pay to influence the USA standards; don't you think they pay them too?
No way, I am flabbergasted that someone would even suggest that Microsoft would do something as underhand as this.
I for one will stand up and defend...err.....hold on....
Did they do anything besides present their technology? What financial incentives did the UN gain from ebXML?
I have been pwned because my
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?
They actually do stuff besides sit politicans around a large table and disappear for the next 5 years?
Yea right!
This is not especially surprising, considering the number of large businesses that lobby and otherwise bride their way through government.
At least Microsoft is not getting their buddies elected or, say, preventing security standards from cutting their operation costs at the detriment of their employees and customers' safety.
Swinging one way or the other on a data exchange standard seems pretty harmless to me. But I guess this is the 'excuse du jour' for some quality MS-bashing...
Microsoft bad... IBM good... so... confused....
Money Can buy!
Mr. Softy would be an idiot not to pay it off. In fact, it's a know fact, it's the only way to get anything done.
Take for instance The U.N. Oil For Food Program. Saddam called it: I'll scratch your back... You Save My Butt!
My wife worked for the U.N. in Africa for 5 years and saw first hand the corruption. TO the point of it being such a joke, that she doesn't even list the experience on her resume. Instead she talks about the odd jobs she performed such as international currier after her UN stint, but while still in Africa.
It's $1 billon. So yes I think this may be true.
"Is Microsoft Paying To Influence UN Standards?"
/. story headline:
Uh... Yes it does?
How is this surprising?
Next
"microsoft's business malpractices."
come on...
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
WIPO Pressured to Kill Meeting on Open Source
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
It used to be "Bribing"
Then it was "lobbying"
Now it's "Spending Strategically"
bs
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
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."
... but the "stop working on ebXML" link seems to suggest that the work was deemed complete, rather than being shitcanned. Also, as the summary says, the BCF stuff is being promoted by both MS and IBM - both of whom are OASIS members.
/shrug
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
"...influence the USA standards..."
The UN isn't just USA but the United Nations made up of well over 100 countries. Much bigger field to influence.
Evolution or ID?
This may prove to show an even bigger problem with the UN. That it can be bought. M$ has the money to do it too.
I wonder if there are any provisions or controls over the UN to prevent this.
Evolution or ID?
"Is Microsoft Paying To Influence UN Standards?"
In case you haven't noticed, the UN is everybodies bitch lately.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
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.
With Microsoft basically failing trying to influence independent countries to not use OSS, it seems that have gone further down to the root of the tree. I imagine their planning is to try to infect from the bottom up, they figure that maybe someday in the future more and more countries will look to the UN for technology advice/guidance and wouldn't it be just peachy for the UN to push MS's products and services?
Looks like they now have the UN as technology peons as well. surprise surprise
Those who trade in their freedom for security, deserve neither.
when national governments develop "standards for business exchange." After all, they have a legal obligation to do so. However, it's pretty scarry when the UN starts to do it and even worse when a corporation can purchase the votes to make their stuff the standard.
what really gets to me is that the un would even be dabbling in this sort of thing. next thing they may be off for taxing and that, my friends is the end of the world as we know it and the change is not going to be desireable, believe me you.
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.
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. >:-|
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I think a discussion about paying to influence the UN would be a little shallow without bringing this up for perspective.
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.
Achieving consensus is hard. Really hard. It is what good leaders do well.
Why do we need a standard set by the UN anyway?
Except now we know what (2) is.
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
Whats new. Microsoft buy of people all the time. Its not just Microsoft either. Most American business engage in dubious practices to sell their products. IBM got burned for bribing officials in Asia lately - just because other companies haven't had their dodgy dealings uncovered doesn't mean it doesn't go on.
It's not that it's surprising that Microsoft would be buying influence at the UN; most of the member states are headed by kleptocratic governments whose first question is "How much for me?" Even when the governments aren't fatally corrupt, payoffs are the way to get things done in most places the UN represents.
That MS is playing by those rules isn't surprising at all, and I'm sure the Bush adminstration is rooting for standards tied to corporate interests and IP as well.
Slashdot needs to create another category for some of their stories. The "No shit Sherlock!" category.
Regardless of who it is, any big buiness that has the funds will try to manipulate things in order to assist their growth and locking out competition..
Normal operating procedure.. why act suprised?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
MS and standards are a bit of a contradiction. MS will tembrace any standard and then extend it as they seem fit.
In this case they were afraid that ebXML was gathering too much momentum so they just tried throwing a few sticks in the wheels of ebXML.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Why MS is paying for something they will not follow after voted?
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
If the only thing that money is used for is to pay off some corrupt politicans, then that donation is evil. And most often when it comes to MS then they donate software which almost doesn't cost them a dime.
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.
IBM has had some experience with trying to impose a proprietary standard when there a good, open one. Anybody remember IBM's token rings?
Need help finding the flow? http://www.myspace.com/naturalismandbalance
I recall what the US said to South Africa.
Well give you money to support your nation, but you must allow us to give you agricultural goods as well for free.
SA was willing to accept the free money, but refused to accept the free Aggi goods. SA did not want to destroy their own countries Aggi economy. The US thus refused to support them monetarily.
Yes free stuff is not always as it appears. This tactic used BY microsoft is also the tactic they try to suggest OSS is using against them. The Devil always sees the devil in everyone else.
They want to be recognized as their own country.
I chalk it up to a need to replace old revenue streams before they dry up, or before security and anti-trust penalties take it down for the count, before the company gets a proper audit...
'Course all that's moot if Joe Sixpack figures out that Windows is not ready for the Internet, but that Linux, BSD and OS X are, plus cost effective and easy to use.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Correction, the name should have been Andy Bowers, not Bob Garfield. Apologies.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
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.
Many posts here have been modded up, and rightly so I suppose, for pointing out that this is business as useal.
However, unless people like us are in the know about things like this we there is nothing to stop large business groups from railroading whatever they see fit though standardizing boards.
Yes this is a news site. Yes, guys and gals this IS news. Yeah, the editors have a anti-MS bias but that does not mean that it's not newsworthy.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Sure, Linux provides free software. How much money to educate people in the developing world to use it?
"In related events, Microsoft has offered to buy the entirety of the UN in a cash offer extended early Monday. The news sent the software makers stock into a slight tailspin dropping by nearly a full point, while the UN rose 2/10ths. While there is no official comment from either party, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was overheard recently remarking that domination of the world's software market has always been a springboard to bigger things. Analysts are scambling to determine how exactly the two corporate structures and cultures would mesh. Rumors that the UN's trademark blue helmets would be replaced by pocket protectors are, so far just that, rumors."
Is it Microsoft who is evil for spending money or the UN for being influenced by it?
The site is sponsored by a group called Public Citzen, a 30 year old organization established with Ralph Nader that among other tracks the funding of all canidates, regardless of party:
Microsoft is on the list of contributors to the Bush reelection campaign.
Steve
How does this happen? The opportunity that presents itself doesn't seem like a bribe. It seems like an opportunity that would otherwise go to waste.
Let me give an example. About a dozen years ago I was the (volunteer) treasurer of a non-profit organization. As such I chaired the Finance committee (also volunteers). We banked at the Metro Credit Union, an institution like a bank, except you become a (voting) member, not a client, when you open your account. The Credit Union offered a "member appreciation dinner" to all members who attended the Annual General Meeting. And my organization was allowed to send one member.
As Treasurer I could have attended without any paperwork. But I was already a member of the Credit Union, in my personal capacity. To delegate someone else required the signature of two members of my organization's Board of Directors.
Well, the Finance Committee could have discussed who could attend, and the Board could have discussed who could attend. But they only met once a month, so the President and I had a brief informal meeting, and she agreed to sign the document, allowing a buddy of mine, who sat on the Finance Committee to go.
Small potatoes, but that is how corruption starts. You are not behaving corruptly, you are making sure something doesn't go to waste.
So, those in positions where they can be tempted need written standards, that spell out what is allowed and what isn't.
I believe, in America, public office holders are not allowed to accept gifts worth more than $50. It clearly hasn't stopped them from having some very corrupt politicians. Starting with George Washington. Although Kitman's two books, George Washington's Expense Account and The Making of the President, 1789 are written in a humourous tone they do expose some very nasty corruption.
The story completely misses the fact that it's all about standards for TRUSTED COMPUTING DRM information formats. Just Google ebXML "Trusted Computing". These information exchange formats only work on top of a "security system" - they only work if your computer contains a "TCPA Chip". Without the chip you get locked out.
The fact that Micorsoft is promoting one Trusted Computing document format over another is insignifigant. The fact that the UN is promoting Trusted Computing AT ALL is what we should be horrified about.
They are tring to ram through Trusted Computing adoption under the UN authority because the rest of the world would rebell against a US or US/EU effort to impose such a system. Any country that does not adopt Trusted Computing (and create laws protecting that crippled hardware) will be entirely locked out. It would be a monumental Trade barrier. Such countries would be increasingly locked out of the internet itself.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Nice rant, but the facts say otherwise. Check out the ebXML web site for some facts and you'll find it has wide support, was created under the chairmanship of IBM and is supported by key current electronic business project RosettaNet, a range of current players like CommerceOne and Documentum and of course OASIS, which is huge consortium with wide membership including Microsoft and IBM.
Maybe closer to the truth is that the openness of ebXML is a huge threat to the market strategy of Microsoft, offering among other things a standardised XML markup for business transactions (UBL) that undermines the standard-connections, proprietary-content trojan horse that their web services strategy is creating.