Microsoft Provides Own Candidate Shortlist For EU Compliance : Digital-Lifestyles (alpha remix)

You know we live to give you the latest, breaking news but there are times where, if we think the story has been missed, we’ll reference back a little. This is one of those occasions.

Browsing through some news from earlier this month, I have come across a press release entitled Competition: Commission appoints Trustee to advise on Microsoft’s compliance with 2004 Decision containing the following …

“The European Commission has appointed Professor Neil Barrett, a computer scientist, as the Trustee who will provide technical advice to the Commission on issues relating to Microsoft’s compliance with the Commission’s 2004 Decision (see IP/04/382).”

On Microsoft, the European Commission and Independence ... As you will remember, in March last year the European Commission fined Microsoft with almost 500 million Euro for abusing its dominant position (in violation of Article 82 of the EC Treaty) and required that Microsoft implemented remedies as regards both work group server operating systems and media players. Although the sole responsibility of enforcing this Decision lies within the Commission, it was foreseen that a Trustee would provide “impartial expert advice”. The Decision requires that the Trustee be independent. Their role would be, for example:

“as regards the interoperability remedy, where Microsoft is required to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers, his expertise might be used in assessing whether Microsoft’s protocol disclosures are complete and accurate, and whether the terms under which Microsoft makes the protocol specifications available are reasonable and non-discriminatory”.

I have no doubt that Mr. Barrett is perfectly qualified for this job. He has a doctorate degree in mathematics and computer science from Nottingham University, is an expert in computer security and the Unix operating system, has worked for Bull SA and is a technical director for IRM PLC, advising on security policy. Barrett is also a visiting professor of computer crime at Cranfield and Glamorgan universities in the U.K.

The part we’d like to draw attention to is in the last paragraph of the press release (Ed- our highlights)

In accordance with the terms of the Decision, Microsoft submitted several candidates for the position of Monitoring Trustee. The Commission carefully examined all candidates in terms of their expertise and impartiality, and determined that Professor Barrett was the most qualified to carry out the Monitoring Trustee function.

What I do not get is some little details: why should Microsoft (don’t forget, the company to be monitored) be the one that submits a list of candidates for this position? Can’t the Commission produce its own list of experts?

Also: although this is not stated in the Commissions’ Press Release, Euractiv reports that Microsoft will also be paying Barrett. No surprise that Microsoft’s spokesman Dirk Delmartino welcomed the appointment.

Is it just me, or could there be a problem here with the required “independence” of the Trustee?

Ed- Clearly Professor Barrett has no control over which lists he’s placed on, and we’re in no way questioning his experience or what appears to be ample ability to carry out the role. It’s the basis of the selection process that looks a little wonky here.

Monica is a regular contributor to Ofcomwatch