appel à relecture FR->EN - réaction sur le discours de Neelie Kroes sur les standards ouverts et l'interopérabilité

[Jeanne Tadeusz <jtadeusz AT april.org>]

Bonjour,

J'ai fait une première traduction de l'actualité sur Neelie Kroes, les 
standards ouverts et l'interopérabilité, destinée à être publiée 
rapidmeent.
Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait relire?

Merci d'avance,

Jeanne

----
(aussi disponible sur http://www.april.org/en/node/13989 )

Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital 
Agenda Neelie Kroes gave on Thursday, June 10th 2010 a <a 
href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/300&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en";>speech 
on open standards and interoperability</a> during <a 
href="http://www.openforumeurope.org/summit2010";>Open Forum Europe 
2010</a> in Brussels. She underlined in her speech how important those 
two ideas were, which reassured April after <a 
http://www.april.org/en/digital-agenda-europe-theoretical-interoperability-forgotten-implementation";> 
its concerns were raised by the absence of open standards in the Digital 
Agenda. </a> Commissioner Kroes declared that she was «<em>&nbsp;a big 
fan of open standards&nbsp;»</em> which she defined unequivocally as 
standards that «<em>&nbsp;do not come with any constraints for 
implementers&nbsp;»</em>. </p>
<p>
Although this recognition of open standards and interoperability is 
without any doubt a positive step, Neelie Kroes did not give any 
guarantee on their legal recognition at EU level. On the contrary, she a 
sang the same old tune as the rest of the Commission, presenting 
openness as a continuum despite the fact that openness of standards 
amounts to the lack of limitations&nbsp;: there is no such thing as 
openness degrees, there are only degrees in closeness. April 
consequently regrets that Commissioner Kroes did not really commit to 
truly open 
standards<fn>http://www.april.org/en/digital-agenda-eu-commission-favors-obscurantism-over-innovative-and-open-information-society</fn>, 
which are the only way to ensure real interoperability. Taking such a 
stand would have been even more crucial in the current context of 
negociations on the European Interoperability Framework in which open 
standards are threatened</a>.
</p>
<p>
It is even more of a pity given that Commissioner Kroes otherwise 
analyzed very fairly and thoroughly the threat represented by 
proprietary formats. She denounced how <em>«&nbsp;many authorities have 
found themselves unintentionally locked into proprietary technology for 
decades. After a certain point that original choice becomes so ingrained 
that alternatives risk being systematically ignored, no matter what the 
potential benefits. This is a waste of public money that most public 
bodies can no longer afford.&nbsp;»</em>
</p>
<p>
She then proceeded to undescore the consequences of such choices on 
citizens : <em>«&nbsp;it is even worse when such decisions [...] force 
citizens to buy specific products (rather than any product compliant 
with an applicable standard) in order to make use of a public service. 
This could be your kid's school insisting on the use of a specific word 
processing system or your tax department's online forms requiring a 
specific web browser. &nbsp;»</em>. Commissioner Kroes underlined the 
importance of public authorities choosing interoperability and open 
standards<fn>Neelie Kroes uses as an example the Dutch policy <em>comply 
or explain</em>, which demands that public authorities to give a clear 
and justification, instead of it being the easy option.</fn>. April is 
satisfied that this threat is being taken into account, since it had 
already put it forward in its <a 
href="http://www.april.org/en/digital-agenda-letter-european-commission";>letter 
to the European Commission</a>.
</p>
<p>
Neelie Kroes recongized those threats and took up a critical argument on 
the importance of having open standards, understood as standards without 
any usage constraint : <em>«&nbsp;everybody who cares about 
interoperability should care about the financial conditions for the use 
of standards as well as the indirect constraints imposed on third 
parties: the fewer constraints the better&nbsp;»</em>. She emphasizes 
there the threat caused by FRAND licenses clauses<fn>FRAND : <em> Fair, 
Reasonable and Non Discriminatory </em>licencing clauses under which the 
use of the licences is limited by discretionnary clauses</fn> about 
which she admits that <em>«&nbsp;let's face it, establishing FRAND 
(Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) prices is a hard task over 
which reasonable people often disagree.&nbsp;»</em>.  Such licenses are 
essentially antithetic to the ability to pool information, and 
consequently are contrary to the core principles of healthy competition. 
On the other hand, the solution she offered here - ex ante disclosure of 
licensing rules - is avoiding the issue altogether, as it does not 
guaranty any implementation of standards that can be truly used by 
everyone.
</p>
<p>
April is pleased with the outcome of Kroes' speech :  the non-use of 
open standards is recognized as a real threat (of lock-in, of 
limitations imposed on third parties, of discriminatory acquisition 
costs, etc). Reinforced by this analysis of the current situation, the 
Commission now needs to act in concrete terms in favor of open standards 
and interoperability. The integration of companies and citizens in the 
information society depends on it.