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."

No - the price is too cheap

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. :)

Re:No - the price is too cheap

Do you know how much these people earn?


No... do you? But think about it this way. Even if the UN ambassadors are not as well paid (and their salaries do come from their respective countries) as the "average politician" in their countries, you can rest assured that they ARE paid much much more than the "average citizen" that they claim to represent. Such is the same with any politician. Pols are ALWAYS paid more than they are worth, and always make far more than the people they represent.

Being flown around by MS is a big perk for these people. And I bet the MS PR folk really know how to perk up a lowley UN grunts ego to boot...


I doubt it. UN officials (or at least the ones that sit on committees like this) dont fly business class. And first class tickets cost the same no matter who is paying for it.

NOW, if MS was flying them around on their own fleet of private Jets, that is something else entirely. And besides, the lowley UN grunt doesnt sit in committee in the UN building collecting checks from multinationals... the lowley UN grunt is on the ground in Kenya, or Bosnia, or Iraq, or somewhere like that, handing out rice, giving innoculations to children and other such things. Often for months at a time, in some of the worst imaginable conditions.

The ones who sit in committee would never even set foot in most countries they claim to be looking out for, unless it was for a chauffered ride to the presidential mansion, or palace of whatever country it is...

And even the ones who are high up the food chain, who DO happen to get their hands dirty every so often do so under far more security and protection than even common diplomats get.

I imagine that they are getting far more than a couple plane rides and a hotel room...

Re:No - the price is too cheap

No... do you? But think about it this way. Even if the UN ambassadors are not as well paid (and their salaries do come from their respective countries) as the "average politician" in their countries, you can rest assured that they ARE paid much much more than the "average citizen" that they claim to represent. Such is the same with any politician. Pols are ALWAYS paid more than they are worth, and always make far more than the people they represent.

The dutch socialist party [sp.nl] takes the salary from their politicians and pays them an average salary (couldn't find how much directly). The money which is left over is used for campaigns and party activities.

So there are politicians which are a notable exception here.

Re:UN activities

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 [un.org]) "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.

Re:No - the price is too cheap

Pols are ALWAYS paid more than they are worth, and always make far more than the people they represent.

Bullshit. My father was on the city council of our town for several years, and until the last year, was unpaid for the service. Even when a ballot initiative passed to make it a paid position, it paid less than $20k a year. Despite that, he spent 30 or 40 hours a week meeting with constituents, reading memos and reports, attending council meetings, budget meetings, pension board meetings, planning board meetings... There are people who serve in public office because they want to make things better. Not everyone is just in it for themselves.

Re:No - the price is too cheap

"And I bet the MS PR folk really know how to perk up a lowley UN grunts ego to boot..."

I can see it now:

M$: We wrote this operating system JUST FOR YOU. We even named it after you.

UN Grunt: WOW! Windows Me. I like the sound of that.

M$: (evil laughter)

-m

Re:No - the price is too cheap

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.

Microsoft also hired 2 members of the group. This is a pretty standard corporate tactic. Find someone who you can influence to take an early retirement from their influential position, hire them to come work for Halliburton or the Carlyle Group (thrown in for our liberal conspiracy theorist friends) and then pay them a salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to be a consultant. It increases your chances of getting that government contract a hundredfold since the "consultant" is still buddy-buddy with all his old procurement friends at the office. I'm not suprised the corruption has extended to the UN in a similar fashion.

Becoming common practice.

Over the last few years, it's becoming increasingly common practice for MS to hire insiders to plug MS products and protocols. For example, since Bob Garfield [ojr.org] was hired from NPR, NPR has begun not only rebroadcasting content from MS, but also increasing product mentions on air as well as soft pedaling (MS-only) security and anti-trust issues. Moles have also been hired by MS and then restored to government positions in the U.S., Finland, and Norway, just to name a few.

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.

yes

Yes. They pay to influence the USA standards; don't you think they pay them too?

Re:yes, why not?

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!

Surely not!

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....

Re:Surely not!

Let me guess your microsoft monopoly check ran out at the end of the sentance????

What did the ebXML people offer?

Did they do anything besides present their technology? What financial incentives did the UN gain from ebXML?

Re:Double edged Sword

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.

Re:Double edged Sword

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.

Re:Double edged Sword

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.

If you believe so

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?

What? The UN?

They actually do stuff besides sit politicans around a large table and disappear for the next 5 years?

Yea right!

This is not surprising

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...

Re:This is not surprising

This is not especially surprising, considering the number of large businesses that lobby and otherwise bride their way through government.

I know you are probably just writing about the long arm of Microsoft's loot, but it is important to note that the UN is NOT a government entity. It is a forum for governments to sit down and collaborate on various issues. It has no authority (thank God). It doesn't make laws (thanks again, God).

Re:This is not surprising

Excuse me, Sir Coward but I am stating facts. I take offense to your claiming I am mindlessly repeating everything my government says.

If you really believed what you write, or if your comment was based on logic, reason and understanding and not deep-seated hatred of the US, perhaps you would not post anonymously.

Government propoganda? Perhaps you've fallen into the trap of believing UN propaganda, my friend.

Re:This is not surprising

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.

Moral Dilemma!

Microsoft bad... IBM good... so... confused....

UN - The Best International Organization...

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 [scbeacon.com]. 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.

Re:UN - The Best International Organization...

Is the UN really much of a controlling body anymore. The more time goes on the more it is shown to be ineffective. Does anyone really listen to them anymore?

Re:UN - The Best International Organization...

Is the UN really much of a controlling body anymore. The more time goes on the more it is shown to be ineffective. Does anyone really listen to them anymore?

If the UN is so irrelevant and ineffective, why is the Bush administration begging the UN [usatoday.com] to clean up the election mess of the administration in Iraq? It is not like it is much at stake for them, just the re-election chances of chimp.

Re:UN - The Best International Organization...

The UN was NEVER a "controlling body." It's not constituted as a government, it's chartered as a forum for every nation to speak their piece. And that's a good reason to exist. But that's all it is. There are no constitutional protections, for example, to insure fairness of representation, succession, responsibility or accountability. You can't get kicked out of the UN, no matter how bad a sleazeball you are.

Imagine if Hitler had a seat in Congress, and neither and Congress nor his "constituents" could do anything about it except shake their fists. That's the UN.

It's a good and useful forum, but it is completely without authority beyond that which member nations voluntarily cede to it.

Re:UN - The Best International Organization...

"Is the UN much of a controlling body anymore? Not while it's being abused and misused by US policymakers."

Lets be honest. It isn't just being misused by US policymakers. There are many other countries misusing it too.

Re:UN - The Best International Organization...

UN is doing a lot of good, but boring work all over the world. Things like bring in food where there is shortage, educating about AIDS, or having conferences where they try to discuss and resolve issues before they become big problems. They are also engaged in hot spots where the UN staff are risking their life everyday (Iraq is the biggest mass murder of UN staff, but each year all over the world UN staff are killed while on duty). This, even though they don't carry arms and try to be neutral. Iraq is a good example of the UN staffs dangers, where they are seen as US lackeys by parts of the Iraq population, while they are despised by the neo-cons and actively undermined by the current US administration. Fought by both sides that they try to help.

My wife worked for the U.N. in Africa for 5 years and saw first hand the corruption.

Corruption is a huge problem all over Africa. It is a common phenomena in under-developed nations were business laws are weak. It is even found on a large scale in some very developed countries (France and Italy are good examples, while USA has its fair share). Corruption comes in many disguises, from money under the table, to advanced lawyer set up money schemes.

Now, what did your "wife" see? And this corruption she saw, was it UN staff taking money illegally? If she has some good example or even proofs of this, I am sure many neo-cons wants to hear about it. The UN is one of the more scrutinized organizations in the world and any proof of misconduct will be used against it.

You sound like a true astro-turfer to me and I doubt you or your family have worked inside the UN. Remember that the U.N.s Oil for Food program was set up by the USA after the first Gulf war and the UN did the best it could with the rules for the program set down. And it seems to have worked pretty well in the way that Saddam was not able to get new or maintain his old WMD. It was so successful [state.gov] that Saddam spend all his energy trying to undermind the program. Now, show some proof instead of neo-con hate speech that the Oil for food program was a UN and France conspiracy. And please, add some more substance to your FUD about UN in Africa. I am sure your "wife" can give some concrete examples.

Similar story last August

WIPO Pressured to Kill Meeting on Open Source [slashdot.org]

Weird

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....

Re:Weird

I took a database class with Dr. William McCarthy [msu.edu] last semester. He was on the standard's setting comittee and actually spent some time in class relaying this whole story to us. Needless to say he confirmed pretty much everything I'm reading here.

His take seemed to be that this standard was complete in name only, just to have something to show for their efforts. But most of the specialists stopped contributing to it after the MS mess became known.

He understood Microsoft's desire to influence the standards, but most lobbying is done explicitly. I think they reacted so negatively because they were obviously trying to hide their influence, yet pretend to be having an open and impartial standards setting group.

Most of the technology people involved were primarily concerned with making the standard open to even the smallest and poorest businesses and countries worldwide, and when they found out about this they just weren't happy at all.

"Spending Strategically" ???

It used to be "Bribing"
Then it was "lobbying"
Now it's "Spending Strategically"

bs

Re:"Spending Strategically" ???

To paraphrase Bernard from "Yes Minister", It's one of those irregular verbs:
I spend strategically, you lobby, he bribes.

Profit!

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.

of course they would say that...

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!.

Maybe I'm just insufficiently cynical...

... 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

UN Control

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.

Lobbyism

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 [wikipedia.org] definition of lobyism.

ebxml and bcf are on a somewhat different level

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 [coverpages.org] announcement and a BCF faq [unbcf.org] 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 :-)

Corruption levels in the US vs. UN

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.

Welcome to capitalism

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.

It's Dead, Jim.

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. >:-|

Serious, yes, but...

I simply can't take an article seriously that starts "PizzaFace writes..."

-S

maybe the UN...

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

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?

A few comments say this is

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.

Why do we need a standard set by the UN anyway?

Why do we need a standard set by the UN anyway?

Funding plan

1. Don't break up monopolies
2. ??????
3. profit!!!!

Except now we know what (2) is.

U.N. staff not elected by the people

Remember - The U.N. does not answer to any voter in the world. Instead, the U.N. answers to... politicians!

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:Yxb36 w0dDykJ: 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1074281/posts+Saddam%2 7s+Global+Payroll&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

so...

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.

The question is, Who's Surprised?

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.

New category for stories...

Slashdot needs to create another category for some of their stories. The "No shit Sherlock!" category.

Of course...

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?