The open standards development process, whether at the IETF, W3C, or OpenID Foundation, has always been a balancing act. While politics inevitably plays a role (where there are people, there are politics), technology has historically held at least an equal seat at the table.
At least, it did.
With shifting geopolitical priorities and radical changes in the U.S. federal government, open standards organizations are increasingly viewed through the lens of tech sovereignty. Governments are asking:
- Who is participating in standards development organizations (SDOs)?
- Do certain entities have disproportionate influence?
- Where are these organizations based, and whose culture shapes their work?
If the answers boil down to “Big Tech companies, largely U.S.-based, with an outsized impact,” then the technical standard itself becomes secondary. It’s not just about what’s in the spec. It’s about who wrote it. In some cases, that’s enough to render a standard unacceptable, regardless of its technical merit.
When Open Participation Isn’t Enough
Open standards bodies pride themselves on transparency and broad participation. In theory, anyone can contribute; maybe not vote (if voting even happens), but certainly comment, influence, and propose text. Yet that openness isn’t always seen as sufficient. The sentiment seems to be:
“Better to use a suboptimal standard that aligns with national interests than adopt something Those People created.”
If that sounds frustrating, it is. It’s also a stark example of why we can’t have nice things.
The Shifting Landscape of Standards Development
This growing concern over control and influence raises serious questions:
- What happens to global interoperability if standards development fragments along geopolitical lines?
- Will the most impactful standards shift to treaty-based SDOs, where geopolitical compromise often takes precedence over technical rigor?
- Will national standards bodies step in, forcing vendors to adapt to country-specific requirements?
One example stands out: the Digital Credentials API (DC-API).
The Digital Credentials API: A Case Study in Standards Politics
On April 23, 2025, I posted on LinkedIn about a major development: the formal objection blocking the DC-API from progressing in the W3C had been overturned. The responses to that post were fascinating and mildly terrifying.
Some saw the DC-API as a valuable tool for the EU Digital Identity Wallet Architecture Reference Framework (EUDI ARF). Others argued that it was a mistake to allow the spec into anything the EU depends on. Further discussion resulted in the following (paraphrased):
“There’s nothing technically wrong with the spec itself—it’s about who wrote it.”
That’s a tough pill to swallow. If standards adoption hinges more on perceived authorship than technical quality, what does that mean for the future of open standards?
What Comes Next?
We’re witnessing a restructuring of how SDOs engage with the world. Will we see:
- A shift toward EU-led standardization? They are doing some pretty cool stuff.
- Treaty-based SDOs taking the lead? They already have the mechanisms in place for international government support.
- A patchwork of national standards forcing enterprises to navigate an even more complex compliance landscape? It’s a lovely, short-sighted ‘win’ for national tech sovereignty.
I could make a strong case for the open standards model. Transparent processes, broad participation, and high technical quality should count for something. But I also understand why governments want to protect their interests—especially when U.S. politics seem increasingly volatile.
A middle ground would be nice. But before we get there, things are likely to get a lot messier.
Don’t Wait for Regulation to Decide for You
It’s tempting to sit back and wait for regulation to dictate which standards to follow. But that approach comes with real risks. Standards shaped solely by geopolitical negotiation—rather than technical expertise—are unlikely to serve enterprises, developers, or end users well.
If your company relies on interoperability, global reach, or future-proofing your technology investments, now is not the time to disengage from standards work. Instead:
- Stay involved in open standards organizations—even if the process feels frustrating or slow.
- Engage with policymakers to help them understand the real-world impact of their decisions.
- Support industry collaboration to bridge gaps between regulatory needs and technical feasibility.
The future of global standards is still being written. The question is: who will be holding the pen?
Need Help Navigating This Shift? I spend a lot of time helping companies track standards developments, understand emerging regulatory trends, and figure out where they can (and should) engage. If you’re trying to make sense of this evolving landscape and want to stay ahead of the curve, let’s talk.