I2010 Standards: Influence beyond Europe

I2010 Standards: Influence beyond Europe

Samuel Warren

IS464-Policy

Ryan Gunhold

City University

March 3, 2012

Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................... 3

I2010 Standards Overview................................................................................................................ 3

Impacts on eGovernment................................................................................................................... 4

Impact on Other Businesses............................................................................................................... 6

References........................................................................................................................................ 6

Executive Summary

Standards are a great resource for organizations that are emerging into their chosen market. The European Union (EU) took some common standards and decided to act upon them. The newly christened “i2010” was a grand project to increase revenue, innovation, jobs, and the collective economies of the EU. While they are often beneficial from an end-user perspective, they can be very costly and complex to maintain, as discussed herein. The following outlines some of the key understandings of how the standards influence, not only eGovernment, but also businesses directly affected by the standards.

I2010 Standards Overview

Standards are multifaceted and extremely hard to get right. Most often, standards are created to rally partners around a common framework, or guiding principle. When larger groups set standards for other groups to follow, the constant search for balance comes into play. Forcing one’s set of standards on other groups can be a dangerous and costly venture. When the European Union (EU) was formed, they began to assemble collective standards including standards for Internet technologies. Thus, the newly christened i2010 was created with several goals to improve the collective Internet technologies. The goal was to make broad and sweeping technological changes in the European Union by 2010. The governing body wanted to make ICT (Internet and Communications Technologies) readily available to every person living in the EU, as well as those outside.

Information and communication technologies are a powerful driver of growth and employment. A quarter of EU GDP growth and 40% of productivity growth are due to ICT. Differences in economic performances between industrialised countries are largely explained by the level of ICT investment, research, and use, and by the competitiveness of information society and media industries[1]. ICT services, skills, media and content are a growing part of the economy and society. (European Commission Digital Agenda, 2005)

There are positives and negatives to these standards being implemented. While the standards are implemented, some of the positives include improved user experience, access to the Internet for all citizens. Another major positive is the ability within the EU to connect to other services and applications much more quickly.

The interconnection can be very good, but it may also be a negative. Unless there is a clear delineation of applications with security for each, protecting the systems would be a nightmare. Creating access and interconnection between applications presents a huge vulnerability. Because information is shared freely between Internet applications and other technology, such as cellular phones, an attacker would only need to gain access to one vulnerable system to gain access to all other connected applications. When determining international standards such as i2010, one should be aware of the risks and determine the best course of action to combat the possible loopholes.

Impacts on eGovernment

Along with the standards provided by the European Commission for Information and Communication Technologies, there has been significant improvement in how government interacts with its constituents. Since the beginning of the Internet, there have been proponents that have pushed its potential. They have pushed as many services as they can online. One of the first services available was a bulletin board for people to dial into using their modem. With the invention of DSL, Broadband, and Fiber-Optic based Internet connections, and tools that can communicate that rapidly, the Internet exploded. What was once a bulletin board and e-mail landscape has quickly shifted to eServices, ecommerce, live-video streaming, music transfer, and the like. It seems only natural that the government, which requires a high level of communication internally and externally would follow suit. Creating a system that allows Department of Licensing tasks to be done online or paying taxes online makes it easier for the consumer and the government to communicate and handle business. That said, having broadly accepted standards for a group of nations, as is the case with the European Union (EU), makes it easier for the citizens of the EU to interact. However, there is a side to setting up this sort of international standard that is not as good. Managing eGovernment requires an immense amount of bandwidth and infrastructure. Many of the i2010 standards are aimed at making infrastructure changes to provide higher broadband connection speeds, but at what cost? The commission has said that it is investing 11 billion Euros into this project (European Commission Digital Agenda, 2005), which is equivalent to roughly $14.51 Billion USD, more than Starbucks’ 2011 total revenue (Starbucks, 2011). Cost is not the only factor to keep in mind. According to Fenwick and Stimac,

Governance becomes increasingly complex in a society with a substantial number of daily transactions. This occurs because the relationship between the number of transactions and the resulting burden on governance is not proportional. Each transaction imposes its own burden, which is amplified by many layers of government. (2009)

Essentially, when you take a high rate of online transactions, which is one of the chief goals of the EU’s i2010 standards (European Commission Digital Agenda, 2005), and pair it with multiple layers of government, you get multifariously complex systems with extremely slow reaction time. The goal of self-service is a noble one; however, eGovernment needs to be carefully monitored and built so that when the layers of government stack up, the Internet portion of the government is not an afterthought.

Impact on Other Businesses

            While the impacts of adding standards to eGovernment may help, especially at an international level, the impact on businesses is most often negative. When standards are enforced by any agency in an attempt to make everyone “play nicely,” the businesses involved frequently have to pay more to keep up. One key example: PCI compliance for credit and debit cards. Visa started with the Consumer Information Security Program and the rest of the industry followed suit. PCI Compliance is now a required task for any organization wishing to transact on the Internet. While some may say being in compliance with PCI is not a requirement, think of trying to build an eCommerce platform using only Paypal, or hand-written checks sent in the mail. The ongoing costs of PCI, too, are not simply money, but manpower. Internet developers, working in parallel with Information Security and Network technicians must scan the systems, constantly keep up with new PCI requirements, and repair any noncompliant issues. Obviously, with such a potential loss looming, organizations must do everything within their power to keep in compliance. For some smaller organizations, the costs may be too much to allow a continued foray on the web.

References

European Commission Digital Agenda. (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - “i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment. Multiple: European Union.

Europe's Information Society. (2010). i2010 - Digital Single Market. Retrieved from European Commission Digital Agenda: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/pillar.cfm?pillar_id=43&pillar=Digital%20Single%20Market

Fenwick, W. J. (2009). The necessity of egovernment. Santa Clara Computer and High. Technology Law Journal, 25(3), 427-465.

Starbucks. (2011, January 26). Starbucks Reports Record First Quarter 2011 Results. Retrieved from Starbucks Corporate Site: http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=495