Ray Saintonge wonders:
To what extent do international standards have the
force of law?
I can't even pretend to understand the legal ramifications, but the
participation of the U.S. State Department in the UTC discussions
suggests that this particular standard is being treated as some sort
of treaty obligation. One suspects that the "force of law" question
varies from standard to standard. For instance, standards tied into
interstate commerce such as labeling requirements on food packaging
are likely very closely aligned with federal codes.
On the other hand, issues of timekeeping can vary from state to
state, i.e., Arizona does not observe daylight saving time. Or even
vary within a state or province, since the Navajo nation NE of
Phoenix does observe DST, while the Hopi nation (completely embedded
within the Navajo boundaries) does not. Many countries don't even
reference such standards directly, but only rely on indirect
effects. In this case, a number of countries legally recognize the
older Greenwich Mean Time standard. Opening up the standards
documents - if not the standards process - would benefit the powerful
as much as the powerless.
The question is: What does $100M buy you? This vanishes next to an
international media market of many billions of dollars. That's
gigabucks per year, of course. Even such a generous offering isn't
going to carry the open source revolution into the streets.
The proper model must surely be similar to the Nature Conservancy,
accomplished by: aiming to free the most strategic of information
assets first, directly purchasing only what you must, protecting
other at-risk data via information easements, spending smarter not
outspending, building local cyber-coalitions, connecting open content
green-way corridors, cooperating with unlikely allies such as
"information ranchers", and ultimately funding it all with creative
methods such as tax-friendly knowledge-capitalist estate planning or
boutique info-tourist destinations.
Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory