Previous Chapter: 6 Policy Next Chapter: 8 Registration Agencies 7 The International DOI Foundation
This chapter discusses the organization which governs the DOI® System. Business model
and structural principles; the role of the IDF in relation to its Registration Agencies and the
underlying technologies of the DOI System; the role of the IDF as the DOI System maintenance
agency and development arm; and IDF's relationship to other organizations are described.
Details of membership may be found here. 7.1 Origins and status 7.1 Origins and statusThe International DOI Foundation is an organization established to develop and manage the DOI System. The DOI System evolved from a project of the Association of American Publishers in 1996, which joined forces with the International Publishers Association and the International Association of Scientific Technical and Medical Publishers to launch the Foundation in 1998. The International DOI Foundation (IDF) supports the needs of the intellectual property community in the digital environment, by the development and promotion of the DOI System as a common infrastructure for content management. The Foundation is international in its membership and activities. The International DOI Foundation, Inc. is a non-stock membership corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, USA, registered on 10 October 1997, registration number 2807134 8100. The Foundation is controlled by a Board elected by the members of the Foundation. The Corporation is a "not-for-profit" organization, i.e. prohibited from activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt from US federal income tax under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 et seq. The IDF is also 100% owner of a UK company, IDF (UK) Ltd. 7.2 Business and organizational principles7.2.1 Cost recovery and its protection Persistence is a function of organisations not technology. Hence in building a persistent identifier system, we needed to design a model for a persistent organization. The principle concern of a persistent organization is of continuing funding; hence the model selected for a long-term position was a body that is not reliant on external sources, such as funding or membership, but a self-funding system that can be supported in perpetuity from its own resources. The implementation of the DOI System adds value, but necessarily incurs some resource costs: in data management, infrastructure provision and governance, all of which contribute to persistence. The mechanism chosen to recoup those costs in a self-funding business model, as used by the physical bar code UCC/EAN system, and other proven systems, is a fee for allocation of an identifier but not for its use once issued. To make such a system work effectively requires protection of the assets within the system (1) from illicit exploitation, and (2) for assured quality control. Illicit exploitation would include someone calling something a DOI® name when it is not part of the official system; this could be damaging to one or both the financial health (avoiding payment of an issuing fee) or the quality of the system (poor quality data). To prevent this requires the availability of legal remedies: specifically, the DOI System relies on copyright and trademark law to protect the DOI System brand and reputation. The DOI System is not a patented system; the IDF has not developed any patent claims on the DOI System and does not rely on patent law for remedy. The underlying technologies used by the DOI System also have similar considerations. The Handle System® is used by IDF under licence from Corporation for National Research Initiatives, who have certain intellectual property claims to protect the misuse of the Handle system; indecs intellectual property (IP) is assigned to, jointly and solely, IDF and EDItEUR and made available freely but under stated terms to others (an example being the indecs RDD work contributed to MPEG 21). 7.2.2 The creation of Registration Agencies When DOI names were launched, no third party Registration Agencies existed. Early users of DOI names interacted directly with the International DOI Foundation; the IDF was therefore the only Registration Agency. It was recognized that in order to be widely deployed, the system needed to be widely distributed, and the model chosen (discussed in more detail below) was to appoint third party registration agencies — essentially holders of a franchise of the DOI System. The IDF then becomes more like a wholesaler and the Registration Agencies become retailers. Registration Agencies, rather than IDF, are the face of the DOI System as far as the end customer is concerned. Registration Agencies are now being appointed, in a gradual process of migration to this franchise model. The policies and procedures related to DOI name allocation are moving from IDF alone to this network or federation of Registration Agencies. 7.3 DOI System business modelAt the outset of the DOI System development, a simple model was introduced whereby a prefix assignment was purchased for a one-off fee. The fee was introduced not to cover actual costs, but to recognize the fact that some charging for DOI names would be the intention. IDF used a simple initial economic model: a charge of $1000 for allocation of a prefix (a one-off charge) allowing unlimited number of DOI names to be constructed using that prefix, and entitling the registrant to an infinite number of suffixes. The IDF reserve the right to vary this at a future date. There is no limitation placed on the number of prefixes that any organization may choose to apply for. It was recognized at the outset that this fee structure was a starting point but would be insufficiently flexible for the long term. DOI names allocated using these prefixes purchased directly from IDF were registered without structured metadata: they are now denoted as in "zero Application Profile". The disadvantage of using the direct prefix purchase route is that there is no metadata support and no social infrastructure support of the type, which can be given by a Registration Agency such as CrossRef. We are now in a process of migration to a wide variety of potential business models, using third part registration agencies, in recognition of the fact that such a simple model is not a "one size fits all" solution. The direct prefix purchase route is now only an option in exceptional circumstances where an appropriate Registration Agency doesn't yet exist or if the assigning of DOI names is for experimental purposes. All future DOI names will be registered through one of many Registration Agencies, each of which will use one or more defined DOI® Application Profiles, and each of which is empowered to offer more flexible pricing structures. The pricing structures and business models of the Registration Agencies will not be determined by the IDF; each RA will be autonomous as to its business model. Business models for these agencies could include, but not be limited to, cost recovery via direct charging based on prefix allocation, numbers of DOI names allocated, numbers of DOI names resolved, volume discounts, usage discounts, stepped charges, or any mix of these; indirect charging via cross subsidy from other value added services, agreed links, etc. The IDF places minimal constraints on the business models offered by RAs, and enters into discussion on practical implementation of any of these. The customer should be interested in "what does the retailer charge". An RA will provide a service — e.g. CrossRef. One of the things they will do for that service is allocate a DOI name -- and the metadata (or help with it, or specify it, or...). But it's not the ONLY thing they do. So you can't look at the charges of an RA and say "that's what a DOI name costs". RAs may find it beneficial to develop new DOI Application Profiles and services for their customers, or to the same market segment, in order to widen the potential for use and income stream from their DOI System activities. In some other sectors, products created as a spin off from basic registration activities provide the funding to cross-subsidize and create a low price for registration itself. The IDF encourages the appropriate use of DOI name prefixes without undue financial penalty. For example, to encourage multiple prefixes within a single organization (this may prove administratively convenient especially in large organizations); or at a different level of granularity (e.g. prefixes allocated to imprints, record labels, image libraries, magazines, journals, etc). A fixed fee per prefix limits this. While the migration to more sophisticated business models is under way, and market development is being undertaken by Registration Agencies, the IDF deliberately offers only a basic and relatively inflexible prefix-based fee structure. We receive many requests for flexibility in prefix allocation or costs. We will attempt to deal with these requests sympathetically but must point out that we have limited options in designing an equitable pricing scheme to suit every need before the appointment of specific registration agencies. 7.4 DOI System organization modelThe IDF organization was set up on a similar model to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) with funding from Members, and no direct funding from the operational DOI System. The member-based IDF subsidized all the operational running of the system. The members of IDF, as with members of W3C, pay a membership fee to support development of the system as a pre-competitive standards activity, which when widely implemented will enable costs savings or new business opportunities in the community (an analogy: allowing the tide to enter the yacht harbor, enabling each yacht to float free but with no advantage to any one over the others). The IDF currently contracts with various technical providers e.g. CNRI and will similarly contract with any other organizations to which operational tasks are delegated. IDF will continue to control the relationship with the global resolution provider, on behalf of all RAs. RAs are free to subcontract or partner with others to deliver part of their services. The IDF aims to migrate to a different sort of organization as an established standards deployment activity. This is modeled not on W3C but on similar activities such as ISBN, EAN, VISA. The EAN model is perhaps the closest to likely mature DOI System yet identified. In such a model, the operating entities deploying the standard (in the case of the DOI System, Registration Agencies (RAs)) form a federation structure. The Operating Federation is run by the Agencies via an agreed structure and with an appointed managing agent. The "Federal principle" specifies that users of the system make decisions at the lowest appropriate level; a governance layer ensures interoperability of lower levels; the governance layer implies "minimal constraint". From this it follows that each RA is free to determine its own business activities, constrained only by the agreed level of federal governance. This is a market economy model: in a market economy, anybody can trade with anybody, and they don't have to go to a market square to do it. What they do need, however, are a few practices everyone has to agree to, such as the currency used for trade, and the rules of fair trading. In order to consider the development of such a structure for the DOI System, it's useful to project forward to a stable mature economic model, and then to work back to how this might be achieved. The economic model is not yet fully established but we are working towards it. The business model of each RA is determined by the RA itself. The RA enters into agreements with its customers (DOI name assigners); these may be radically different between RAs, depending on the needs of its customer communities, its own other business, the value-added services it offers, competitive pressures, etc. The agreements will however require conformance to the overall federal standards. The RA enters into a contractual agreement with the Operating Federation, guaranteeing the conformance to minimal criteria covering conformance to technical, information management, and economic criteria. The "economic criteria" for being a member of the Federation is a payment to support central Federation governance: a "participation fee", or "franchise fee". All RAs agree that certain high level or "central" functions are to be carried out not by one RA but by the central Operating Federation organization on behalf of all. The costs of carrying out these agreed central functions result in an annual operating budget. The budget costs are apportioned across all RAs in an agreed fashion, resulting in the "participation fee" paid by each RA into the central Federation. The sum of the participation fees matches the budget costs. If the proposed central budget is agreed by the RAs (who govern the Operating Federation) to be too high, RAs must either agree to decrease the central functions, or modify their business model to generate the necessary increased participation fee. The participation fee can be viewed as the minimum cost necessary to participate in the system and gain access to the infrastructure, technology, existing brand value, franchise materials, etc. The percentage of total central Operating Federation costs borne by an RA can be determined by a fixed criterion or dynamically by agreeing on a pre-set formula (e.g. a function of number of prefixes, number of DOI names, number of resolutions, etc ). As the number of RAs increases, the proportion of costs contributed from Operating Federation increases and from Membership declines. Consider a possible migration path (this is necessarily a simplification for illustrative purposes, assuming simply one fixed participation fee, but the same principles can apply to a more dynamic cost apportioning model and multiple year budgets):
These figures ignore the effect of volume charges for number of DOI names beyond the minimum; these charges will substantially increase the revenue derived from RAs and decrease the need for member-based subsidy. A more detailed financial model is used in practice to allow for these factors. A variation on this model will eventually be feasible. Some areas of development costs may not be essential to the existing Operating Federation, but some potential RAs or members may want to see these developed: e.g. future functionality beyond that already provided. A structure can be conceived which supports both and where governance is via two "chambers", embracing both the current organization model (for "Development") and the Operating Federation model. An organization which is both a Member of the Foundation and an RA (participant in the Operating Federation) would receive some benefit (e.g. votes in both "chambers" but probably also some reduction in one or other fee). We have begun the transition to this form of model by the creation in 2001 of a new category of membership, that of "Registration Agency". Registration Agencies currently have a proportion of the seats on the controlling board of the Foundation. It is the intention that this percentage be increased approximately in proportion to the percentage of revenue derived from RA operating activities. 7.5 Relationships between Registration AgenciesThe organizational model outlined here provides a clear basis for the relationship between end customers (registrants) and Registration Agencies; and between RAs and the Operating Federation. There is however another set of relationships which needs to be considered, between the various Registration Agencies themselves. In the Operating Federation model as implemented in e.g. EAN or ISBN, each RA has a geographical basis. Although customers are free to choose which RA to use, in practice most may go to one familiar to them, a local language agency. In the digital world, it is not clear whether such a basis is appropriate. In favor of such an arrangement is the need for language-specific related materials and support (e.g. local language guideline materials, helpdesk systems, and potential specialized consultancy staff). Arguing against such an arrangement is the fact that in a digital world, geographical barriers are less important, and an arrangement focussed on content sector or content type may be more effective. In some major markets (e.g. the English language markets) it could be possible that the intellectual property sector approach will be favored; whereas in smaller language markets, a geographical (or at least linguistic) basis may be more appropriate. Initial RA appointments made by IDF include examples of each. The IDF Registration Agencies Working Group has been set up to deal with issues such as this, and agree on common principles which foster a climate in which working as a registration agency is attractive, yet any long term monopoly is avoided. 7.6 The IDF as the DOI System Maintenance AgencyDOI System reliability and predictability can only be delivered in an automated environment, if the DOI System operates in conformance with a flexible and extensible framework of standards; the framework itself can remain unchanging, while specific market-driven developments can be incorporated and managed by extending the framework. For example, new DOI-APs can be readily developed to meet specific community needs, and new services added. There is an increasing community of interest in the DOI System — Registration Agencies, Registrants, users, and the members of IDF. Each of these groups needs to have a voice in the development of DOI System technical and procedural standards, to ensure that they are genuinely market driven. However, there must ultimately be one organization that arbitrates and decides what should or should not be developed into a standard for the DOI System. The IDF is the Maintenance Agency both for those aspects of the DOI System that are put through external standardization procedures, and for those aspects of the DOI System that are considered more appropriate for purely internal standardization. This Handbook is an exemplar of the role of the IDF in promulgating a common and consistent approach across all Registration Agencies and users. With respect to external standards, the role of the IDF as Maintenance Agency is laid down by the regulations of the external standards body. IDF maintains formal and informal alliances and strategic relationships with a number of standards bodies and other organizations. With respect to internal DOI System standards, the IDF acts as final arbiter. 7.7 The IDF and DOI System developmentThe development of the DOI System can be described as following a three-track approach:  Figure 1 The development of the initial implementation — the resolution of a DOI name to a single URL, or "single redirection" — was the urgent first task of the Foundation. As the initial implementation was being developed, work was in hand to develop the other two strands of the DOI System activity: the full implementation that is currently deployed (allowing multiple resolution and mandating the declaration of metadata); and the close liaison with standards-making organizations and with other initiatives with adjacent interests. The initial implementation of the DOI System was an essential, but limited, first step. Over 50 million DOI names have already been registered and are in regular use, permitting simple resolution to a single URL. However, this first step was always recognized as just that — a first step. As the full implementation of the DOI System is completed, the limitations of the initial implementation will become increasingly apparent. DOI names already registered have the option to migrate into the "Zero Application Profile" or into another appropriate DOI-AP. A DOI name in the Zero AP will have no associated metadata, and will therefore have very limited functionality. The full implementation offers the necessary infrastructure to provide for the declaration of metadata alongside the DOI System, and the development of services that reflect the complexity of intellectual property and intellectual property rights. Such services will not appear instantly, but will be developed commercially in response to market demand. The IDF works closely with Registration Agencies, Registrants and others to encourage the development and deployment of useful services, and to facilitate any technical developments within the DOI System as a whole, including development of Handle System technology, that are required to permit the implementation of new services. 7.8 IDF Members Working Group (MWG)MWG members are IDF member organizations who use the MWG Mailing List to discuss technical and operational issues, and for exchange of views on strategic issues in an early stage of discussion. 7.9 DOI System and Handle System® development7.9.1 The Handle System Advisory Committeee IDF participates in the Handle System Advisory Committee, set up by CNRI to enable the fair and open evolution of the Handle System in the public interest; the committee provides advice and guidance to CNRI and the individual sector constituencies of the Handle System user community on matters of strategic direction, finance, technology and standards, infrastructure, administration, etc. 7.9.2 Further development of related technology CNRI continues to improve the Handle System. Feedback from users, including the IDF, as well as developments in related network protocols, have resulted in significant evolution of the system. Complete technical specifications and other details can be found at the Handle System web site at http://www.handle.net. CNRI continues to be dedicated to the development and evolution of the Handle System as a useful part of the overall architecture for the management of digital objects on the Internet. Much of CNRI's Handle System development work looks beyond the basic resolution facilities (rapid, scalable, and reliable resolution of "handles" to multiple, typed values representing current state data) to improvements in both server and handle administration (creating and maintaining handles and handle data) and security. The implementation of "sessions" for handle administration, which reduces the number of messages exchanged between client and server during handle administration processes, has significantly reduced the time required to process requests. In addition, support for encrypted communication between clients and servers has been added. The protocol provides a "trust model" for the Handle System, based on public/private key encryption. Every handle server has its own public/private key pair that can be used to authenticate server-to-server transactions, and each individual handle has one or more defined "handle administrators". Administrators are themselves identified by handles, and each administrator may have his own public/private key pair (or secret key) for authenticating administrative permissions. The Handle System infrastructure forms the basis, among other things, for a completely distributed administrative system. Any individual or process, with valid credentials, can administer handles in the relevant handle service. A reference may be included in a handle value, again using public key technology, to authenticate that value with a third party, a type of "seal of approval". This is usefully distinguished from authentication of the server ("I trust that this value came from a given handle server") and from the administration of that server ("in addition to trusting that the value came from a given server I trust that the server's administrative facilities are not compromised"); it is a way to authenticate the information itself ("in addition to trusting the complete delivery mechanism, I trust that the data is true"). The trust model positions the Handle System as a reasonable candidate for an improved PKI (public key infrastructure), the existence of which seems vital to the evolution of managing intellectual property on distributed communication networks. 7.10 DOI System and indecs developmentIDF shares with EDItEUR the role of safeguarding and developing the work resulting from the indecs project, which has since been developed further in a number of ways shown schematically here:  Figure 2 7.10.1 The initial indecs project (Dec 1998-June 2000) The indecs (interoperability of data in e-commerce systems project) project was established at the end of 1998, with support from the European Commission's Info 2000 Programme and a wide range of partners and affiliates, representing a very broad crosssection of international bodies representing all aspects of the content industries' value chain from creators to users. The project documentation and Summary Final Report may be found at http://cordis.europa.eu/econtent/mmrcs/indecs.htm. The initial indecs project developed the indecs metadata framework, a reference model. At the end of the project (June 2000) the intellectual property resulting was entrusted jointly to the International DOI Foundation (developing the DOI System) and EDItEUR (developing ONIX International in the text sector.) This was done on the basis that IDF and EDItEUR were active in public implementations of indecs, and each was a non-commercial entity, already collaborating closely. 7.10.2 DOI System-specific development (2001) The IDF took the indecs analysis and integrated this with CNRI's digital object architecture and technology in order to provide a coherent and consistent means of expressing interoperable metadata and identifiers in the DOI System. In order to develop tools for practical implementation such as Application Profiles, IDF began to develop a functioning DOI System namespace metadata dictionary to support interoperability between DOI System Application Profiles, and potentially with other metadata schemes (e.g. Dublin Core, ONIX, MARC, PRISM etc). During the course of 2001, interest in the development of such schemes widened, and an opportunity arose to combine further DOI System work with a new phase of development of the indecs analysis with other organizations. 7.10.3 indecs as input to MPEG (2001-2003) In April 2001, the IDF funded a feasibility study for a consortium (later known as CONTECS:DD) which would fund the development of standard rights terms to enable the exchange of key information between content industries for e-commerce trading of intellectual property rights. Recognition of the urgent need for a content-industry RDD from activities especially in the International Standards Organization (ISO) Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG) prompted the IDF's funding for the study. Founding sponsors EDItEUR and the International DOI Foundation (IDF) were joined by organizations including the Motion Picture Association of America (MPA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and others in a consortium to develop a dictionary which was adopted as baseline technology for the ISO-MPEG-21 Rights Data Dictionary standard (see http://www.doi.org/news/020114-DRM.html#current). 7.10.4 The DOI Data Dictionary (2003 onwards) In 2003, IDF further developed the concepts of indecs by carrying out a proof-of-concept exercise aimed at providing support for all current and future DOI System metadata requirements in collaboration with ONIX. Terms from the DOI System metadata set, ONIX for Books Release 2.0, Crossref metadata and relevant portions of the draft MPEG-21 Rights Data Dictionary (RDD) were mapped together using the "contextual" methodology developed through the indecs framework and the MPEG-21 RDD standardization process. The single operational dictionary will support both DOI Application Profiles and the various ONIX messages. ONIX and the DOI System will continue with independent but now complementing development of their work. This development offered the possibility of re-uniting indecs developments under a common banner with renewed visibility. Since the first indecs work was completed in 2000, there have been several strands of indecs development: the establishment of these terms in a common DOI Data Dictionary re-unites these efforts under one well established name. InterParty is a project funded under the European Commission's Information Society Technologies Programme (IST), to design and specify a network to support interoperability of party identification (for both natural and corporate names) across different domains. InterParty builds on the work of the indecs project, one of whose deliverables was a specification for a Directory of Parties. InterParty is not proposed as a replacement for existing schemes for the identification of participants in the intellectual property domain (e.g. national library name authority files or systems oriented towards the needs of rights licensing) but as a means of effecting their interoperation. Because of the close relationship with the interoperability function of the DOI System and the acceptance of common principles, IDF is a participant in the project. 7.11 Alliances and liaisons with other organizationsA significant element of the work of the IDF lies in tracking standards developments in related areas, understanding their significance to the context within which the the DOI System will operate, and establishing working relationships with the responsible organizations and projects to ensure that appropriate co-operation is fostered to mutual benefit and that parallel developments do not remain in ignorance of one another. The DOI System is one component of a fast developing technological infrastructure for the management of intellectual property in the network environment. There are many different players involved in the development of that infrastructure, ranging from technical organizations to the "content industries" themselves. Many communities are seeing the need to develop an identification scheme for their material. Joining the International DOI Foundation community allows them to instantly leverage years of intelligent policies, standards development and other value-adds, yet not limit in any way autonomy or ability to organize/create own activities. The IDF framework is open enough to leave tremendous room for a community's own autonomy, activities, and control. Working together rather than dividing efforts is a sensible way forward, and so we welcome discussion with any community. The International DOI Foundation is a member of some standards organizations, and maintains a number of liaisons or alliances through memberships and/or exchange of information with others, which allow us to act as a collaborative interface in discussions on standards and infrastructure development across the spectrum of intellectual property and technology communities. This provides advantages both to members of the Foundation (who may otherwise not be able to participate in all of these discussions) and to the strategic partners (who deal with IDF as a common voice for the intellectual property community in this area). In addition to the major alliances noted here, the IDF has a number of other relationships with significant development and standards activities in many areas of intellectual property and technology. Some of these are specific to particular application areas, and are undertaken in order to seed activities and outreach from the DOI System to potential implementations. This list is expanding and we welcome expressions of interest from organizations who wish to establish such a relationship. ALPSP
CENDI
cIDF
CNRI
COUNTER
EDItEUR
IETF indecs
IRTF
ISO Within ISO TC46 we are particularly involved in the work of SC9, the TC 46 Subcommittee that develops and maintains ISO standards on the presentation, identification and description of documents (ISBN, ISSN, ISRC, ISRN, ISMN, etc.). Current work of SC9 includes the development of an International Standard Textual Work Code (ISTC); the development of this standard has touched on many issues common to the IDF's work. We have also been involved in discussions on the metadata associated with such identifiers.
MPEG
NISO
IDPF
WIPO The WIPO Digital Agenda, adopted by the Assemblies in September 1999, includes as one of its aims the facilitation of "interoperability and interconnection of electronic copyright management systems and the metadata of such systems" (Digital Agenda, item 6). 7.12 Governance of the DOI SystemThe International DOI Foundation is governed by its members, through an elected board. All seats on the Board are held for a three-year term. There are currently fourteen board seats — General Members hold four seats, Charter Members hold six seats, and Registration Agencies hold four seats. The Board officers include a Chair and Treasurer (elected from the Board of Directors) and an appointed Managing Agent responsible for carrying out policy formulated by the Foundation. The Board is responsible for all aspects of management of the DOI System, particularly policy formulation and standards maintenance. The members of the Board of the IDF are not remunerated for their services to the IDF. Members of the Board represent a wide cross section of organizations interested in the management of intellectual property in the network environment. The Managing Agent, Dr Norman Paskin, represents the IDF in many different forums worldwide and is responsible for the implementation of Board policies and management all aspects of the affairs of the IDF. 7.13 Membership of the International DOI FoundationThe activities of the Foundation are controlled by its members, operating under a legal Charter and formal By-laws. Membership is open to all organizations with an interest in electronic publishing, content distribution, rights management, and related enabling technologies. We also welcome comments and participation from non-members. The Foundation develops and establishes policies and procedures and oversees the successful operation of the System. IDF has a membership of committed companies and organizations that participate in the development of the system and its applications and welcome a broader community of organizations, which, by nature of their business or market, have a potential interest. Through their dues, Members support the Foundation, and hence the high-quality operation of the DOI System, which will be integral to furthering the interests of the Foundation's members. Membership in the International DOI Foundation (IDF) is open to all organizations with an interest in electronic publishing and its related enabling technologies. Members may be either for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. For a list of current members see http://www.doi.org/idf-member-list.html. Participating in an international effort to standardize Internet-related technology is perhaps one of the most important steps that can be taken by any organization which uses the digital environment to deliver content. Rather than rely on other organizations to develop the standards that your organization must deal with, participation offers the opportunity to be involved, to shape, influence and assist in making new technology and information standards serve the needs of your organization. Content must be managed in the digital world; the current tools are insufficient. Doing nothing is not an option. There is clear demand from the market to present content accessibly and digitally. The content community must take the lead or technology companies will fill the vacuum, or will ignore or downplay the rights and intellectual property aspects. No other forum does what the International DOI Foundation does. Why collaborate? To inter-operate with others outside your business; supply chain, customers, and competitors that are adopting the key standards designed for interoperability. Collaborating through the International DOI Foundation will reduce costs and prevent mistakes and dead-ends when trying to advance as a single company. In our working groups you have the opportunity to take account of intelligent reviews of others' activities. We provide a common platform, and offer you the opportunity to build added-value services that ensure wider usage if designed to support your interests. We allow you to influence the course of our activities; participate in working groups, meetings, prototypes, stand for election and lobby board members. The cost of membership for an organization is low (equal to 2-3 days per month of a consultant), but you benefit immediately as well as for the long term. Members can suggest work in their area of interest and costs don't fall only on you. We provide monthly briefings on other activities, which you cannot afford to attend or monitor in detail (WIPO, W3C, IETF, MPEG, ISO, IDPF, SIIA, and others). You will be involved in a comprehensive effort that will expand your markets; international participation from the US, Asia, Europe and from multimedia industries, e.g., text, music, software, broadcast, images and news. The more you participate in our forums and tap into our resources, the more you learn how to exploit and control content to ensure flexibility to do business amidst the changing winds of technology. By joining the International DOI Foundation you will soon recognize why participation in developing the DOI System is the prerequisite to digital trading, selling and protection of intellectual property. On joining the IDF, a free DOI name prefix will be available for experimental purposes should you require it. Please contact the IDF at contact@doi.org to request this. The number of DOI names allocated with this experimental prefix will be subject to review and may be limited at the discretion of the IDF. If further DOI name prefixes are required for non-experimental purposes, you should work with one of our Registration Agencies. Registration Agencies (RAs) are established to provide services on behalf of specific user communities. For further information on RAs, please see Chapter 8 Registration Agencies, and the Registration Agencies page on the DOI.ORG website. Members may be either for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. Membership is normally not open to individuals, but the Board reserves the right to allow this in exceptional cases. There are four classes of membership: General, Charter, Registration Agency, and Affiliate. Charter, General and RA Members are entitled to vote in annual IDF elections within their own category of membership (Affiliate members do not have voting rights.) All IDF members can participate in IDF working groups; Affiliate membership allows participation in one Working Group only and this must be by invitation of the Working Group chair.
The benefits of membership participation flow downward to subsidiaries of members as follows:
A membership application can be found at http://www.doi.org/membership/membership-form.html. Membership fees fall due annually on the anniversry of joining — US members will be invoiced their member fees in US$ and non-US members will be invoiced their member fees in GBP£. The pound sterling value will be calculated each year based on the US exchange rate set at the start of each year, currently this is $1.86:£1. Eligibility for Membership may be re-evaluated at each point the Member Agreement falls due for renewal. The current annual fee for General Members is $US 35,000 (GBP£18,817). The current annual fee for Charter Members is $US 70,000 (GBP£37,634), reduced to $40,000 (GBP£21,505) if the Charter Member is also a lender to the foundation. The current annual fee for Members may be reduced at the sole discretion of the Board, subject to a minimum fee of $US 11,500 (GBP£6,183) per annum. There are no differences in member rights and benefits between Charter and General, nor for those for which a reduced fee is payable. Criteria which will be considered in applications for such reduction include in particular any of the following:
The current annual fee for Registration Agency Members is $US 35,000 (GBP£18,817). The current annual fee for Affiliate Members is $US 2,000 (GBP£1,075). This is a minimum membership fee and Affiliate members are encouraged to donate a larger sum at their discretion. In general, it is likely that the cost of your fees will be deductible as a business expense of the joining entity. The detailed question of deductibility is, however, a matter for the tax advisors to the entity that is joining, and it is not governed by IDF's status as a not-for-profit entity. 7.14 Working with user communitiesJoining the International DOI Foundation community allows you to instantly leverage years of intelligent policies, standards development and other value-adds, yet not limit in any way your own autonomy or ability to organise/create your own activities. Our framework is open enough to leave tremendous room for a community's own autonomy, activities, and control. Working together rather than dividing efforts is a sensible way forward. We welcome discussion with any community. Each DOI System user organisations can do whatever it wishes. The DOI System allows for DOI names to be assigned by Registration Agencies (RAs); each RA is autonomous in its business model — the usual analogy is that the RAs collectively set the rules of the road re resolution etc but do not specify the route to be taken, the vehicle to be driven on the road, or the date, time or purpose of the journey of each RA. There's an equal, small, fee for participation in the system to all users; we have no say whatsoever in how they generate that fee. Rather than IDF exerting control on RAs, RAs exert an influence on IDF: RAs may have seats on the Board of the IDF (whereas IDF is not on their board) and representation on the working groups of the IDF. Ultimately the RAs will wholly control IDF as a federation. This structure means that every RA has a say in managing the common infrastructure of many applications; which is our aim. The more RAs, the more valuable such collaboration will be. If a community develops an RA, or endorses a separate entity as an RA, it is free to set up any service and business model it wishes. It is also be able to take advantage of the existing DOI System work and common infrastructure to save time and money and ensure future interoperability. Finally, it would have far more influence than if it developed its own "island of interoperability" by developing a separate scheme which would require gateways to other systems. Previous Chapter: 6 Policy Next Chapter: 8 Registration Agencies |
