• Slide-01

    Our corporate name is
    The Foundation for
    Research to Eliminate
    Economic Distance and
    Opacity via Multilateralism. 

    Or more simply

    FREEDOM-GROUP

  • Slide 02

    We are located at:
    11417 W Sage Ct.
    Avondale, AZ 85392

    You can contact us:

    (623) 478-2825

  • Slide 03

    We are located at:
    11417 W Sage Ct.
    Avondale, AZ 85392

    You can contact us:

    (623) 478-2825

Our Mission, Vision and Goals

Our Mission, Vision and Goals are Captured in Our Name

Freedom-Group's legal composition consists of a not-for-profit corporation that provides a think-tank of benefit to humankind. Freedom-Group's principal administrative aim is to establish itself as a de jure United Nations NGO. This does not mean that Freedom-Group will never handle money; it means rather that Freedom-Group's capital intake and expenditure will maintain its existence and fund ongoing and upcoming research.

Research - FREEDOM-GROUP's principal activity is research of the type that many international, multilateral, and multinational organizations often themselves undertake. Freedom-Group's research has an exceptionally narrow aim: to cure sclerotic conditions which result from existing or emerging regulatory or trade schemes that lack any parallel, matching, or underlying IT support. For example, EU and America both enact regulatory legislation that calls for maximum interconnectedness of statistical and trade systems, but often, without possessing immediate technical expertise to facilitate such interconnectedness. Such measures often therefore reduce rather than increase trade efficiency, speed, and/or transparency.

Freedom-Group will provide technical expertise to help organizations actualize such interconnectedness in the shortest possible time, and for the least cost.

Eliminate - Freedom-Group's research aims to eliminate (or ameliorate) non-tariff-borne Technical Trade Barriers that contribute to or sustain Economic Distance or Economic Opacity.

Below, we define these two terms (Economic Distance, Economic Opacity) as Freedom-Group understands and uses them. Briefly, Freedom-Group understands and uses these terms in the same way that World Bank Group, OECD, IMF, and UN understand and use them. Here, it is sufficient to relate that a) when Freedom-Group refers to "Economic Distance," it means that condition which increases time-to-clear, time-to-market, and time-to-visualize products in trade; and b) when Freedom-Group refers to Economic Opacity, it means that condition wherein security, tracking, and trade systems and supply-chains lack transparency or the ability to visualize, at granular levels, commerce and trade flows. Economic Distance increases cost (and sometimes, as in cases of disaster-delivery systems, loses lives) whilst Economic Opacity enables corruption, inefficiency, and lost revenue opportunities.

Economic Distance - The term "Economic Distance," in Freedom-Group language, refers to those species of Economic Distance which arise from non-tariff-related Technical Barriers to Trade and which operate to needlessly increase time-to-market, cost, and trade sclerosis. These technical barriers now constitute and remain-responsible-for some 22% of all artificial forms of Economic Distance worldwide. In many cases, governments unwittingly erect these non-tariff-related Technical Barriers to Trade whilst enacting and enforcing legitimate security oriented regimes. Whenever this happens, other nations - and importers therefrom - militate against such regimes (chiefly because they do not have ready-at-hand means to automate, say, certification or compliance with such regimes). Such disputes often unnecessarily grow protracted and costly. Many end up scaling WTO's dispute apparatus and never attain a workable solution, e.g., the controversy surrounding United States country of origin labeling
requirements (COOL). America cannot abandon such labeling requirements and so, nations which must comply with said requirements need technology to ameliorate, eliminate, or offset costs that such reporting and labeling requirements impose [on their exporters]. These are the types of problems Freedom-Group aims to solve.

Economic Opacity - The term Economic Opacity, in Freedom-Group language, refers to that condition which, due (again) to non-tariff-borne Technical Barriers to Trade, breeds concrete absence of Economic Transparency. By this, we mean that said TBTs frustrate analysts from "drilling down" to sufficient degrees of granularity to visualize trade patterns, illegal technology transfers, and supply-chain metrics in government, multinational, or regulatory trade traffic. Opacity, in this sense, therefore means "absence of transparency." Below, we offer examples of Economic Opacity. Here, a brief and simple example will do: the UN system uses UNCCS. UNCCS lacks sufficient granularity to visualize "where" various anti-infective and anti-parasitic azole-compound drugs "go." This is because UNCCS cannot articulate these products to any greater granularity than, say, the key-value pair “341641, Compounds containing an un-fused imidazole ring in the structure.” As such, UN cannot "see" the 106-most-common imidazoles, half of which are indispensable anti-fungal and anti-infective drugs. If you cannot visualize this-or-that product (or ascertain its geographical or logical "location" at any moment), you cannot determine public need, institutional usage, effectiveness-of-delivery, or market share. This condition, relative to specific products and services, constitutes lack of transparency and therefore, "Economic Opacity." The Milken Institute is currently working on Economic Opacity.

Multilateralism - Multilateralism, in international relations, is the process by which multiple nation-states or intergovernmental organizations work in concert, most often to establish compatible or shared international law or standards. In regulatory and multinational concerns, this term bears a similar meaning insofar as it connotes cooperation (often of groups with competing interests) to establish standards which all participants in kind voluntarily implement. Below, we offer extensive discussion of the term Multilateralism as Freedom-Group applies and understands it. Here, a brief, simple example of Multilateralism will suffice: The United Nations Standard Products and Services Code system is a Multilateralism system (or rather, UNSPSC aims to be a true multilateral effort, but it has never fully achieved that goal, much to the frustration of non-US UNSPSC participants. This is a problem that Freedom-Group aims to correct).

ABOUT MULTILATERALISM

Multilateralism, in international relations, is the process of multiple nation-states or intergovernmental organizations working in concert, most often to establish compatible or shared international law or standards. In the geopolitical world, the most visible Multilateralism examples are United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU). Organizations that embody this multilateral approach include World Customs Organization (WCO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and World Trade Organization (WTO).

When applied to technologies (or transmission schema, classifications, nomenclatures, ontologies, and taxonomies), Multilateralism concerns nation-states, intergovernmental organizations, standards bodies, and multi- and trans-national corporations working together to create or increase compatibility between trade systems. Nation-states undertake this multilateralist approach to facilitate or speed customs clearance and trade-agreement compliance, or to increase traceability of WMD technologies. International organizations and multinational corporations undertake this multilateralist approach to increase trade transparency and supply-chain visualization.

Why does Freedom-Group take this stance?

Freedom-Group favors Multilateralism because it makes good economic sense from an evolutionary standpoint. For this reason, Freedom-Group champions the same species of Wilsonianism common to the diplomatic service. To qualify this stance, we turn to Dr. Kissinger. In his epic study, Diplomacy, Kissinger writes of contrasts between [Teddy] Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Wilson's press for an international order emanated from his understanding of power balance:

"What Wilson meant by 'community of power' was an entirely new concept that later became known as 'collective security...' Convinced that all the nations of the world had an equal interest in peace and would therefore unite to punish those who disturbed it, Wilson proposed to defend the international order by the moral consensus of the peace-loving."

Although Wilson's original model (The League of Nations) failed, for resurgence in isolationism and nationalism, history bore out his central thesis: commonality of interests in a legitimate international order. Today, the actual, philosophical, and political heir to Wilson's dream is the United Nations. Freedom-Group argues that this same principle, so inherent to modern diplomacy and regulatory administration, should also pervade all manner of standards that influence the global economy. Standards ought be comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of all participating parties in kind. And where this can be accomplished by conferring advantage to all participating parties (without also disadvantaging any party), this should be done. Like it or not, the "global economy" exists and is here to stay. On that basis, we ought construct systems that enhance rather than hinder its development, efficiency, fluidity, and transparency.

But herein lie the challenge for existing global economic, political, and trade systems. Whilst governments, NGOs, international bodies, and standards organizations have created policies and regulations to facilitate free trade, they have seldom inducted said Multilateralism into the IT systems that underpin global economic and trade systems.

As a result, Multilateral efforts aimed at reducing sclerotic economic and trade conditions have sometimes created bottlenecks by unintentionally erecting additional Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Freedom-Group aims to help loosen those bottlenecks.

Given the aforesaid, Freedom-Group's formal name, and focus all incisively articulate its mission, vision and goals: Freedom-Group's mission is to investigate means to Eliminate Economic Distance and Opacity via Multilateralism by correlating and interlinking existing statistical regimes, classifications, ontologies, nomenclatures, and taxonomies, and regulatory and private-industry schema that carry the same.

Freedom-Group's vision is that by such correlation and interlinking, Economic Distance and time-to-market will decrease and increase economic and trade transparency. Freedom-Group’s goals, when realized, would speed economic recovery, promote stouter economic health through more transparent trade, and increase national and international security in both developed and developing nations.

Our Mission, Vision and Goals are Captured in Our Name

Freedom-Group's legal composition consists of a not-for-profit corporation that provides a think-tank of benefit to humankind. Freedom-Group's principal administrative aim is to establish itself as a de jure United Nations NGO. This does not mean that Freedom-Group will never handle money; it means rather that Freedom-Group's capital intake and expenditure will maintain its existence and fund ongoing and upcoming research.

Research - FREEDOM-GROUP's principal activity is research of the type that many international, multilateral, and multinational organizations often themselves undertake. Freedom-Group's research has an exceptionally narrow aim: to cure sclerotic conditions which result from existing or emerging regulatory or trade schemes that lack any parallel, matching, or underlying IT support. For example, EU and America both enact regulatory legislation that calls for maximum interconnectedness of statistical and trade systems, but often, without possessing immediate technical expertise to facilitate such interconnectedness. Such measures often therefore reduce rather than increase trade efficiency, speed, and/or transparency.

Freedom-Group will provide technical expertise to help organizations actualize such interconnectedness in the shortest possible time, and for the least cost.

Eliminate - Freedom-Group's research aims to eliminate (or ameliorate) non-tariff-borne Technical Trade Barriers that contribute to or sustain Economic Distance or Economic Opacity.
Below, we define these two terms (Economic Distance, Economic Opacity) as Freedom-Group understands and uses them. Briefly, Freedom-Group understands and uses these terms in the same way that World Bank Group, OECD, IMF, and UN understand and use them. Here, it is sufficient to relate that a) when Freedom-Group refers to "Economic Distance," it means that condition which increases time-to-clear, time-to-market, and time-to-visualize products in trade; and b) when Freedom-Group refers to Economic Opacity, it means that condition wherein security, tracking, and trade systems and supply-chains lack transparency or the ability to visualize, at granular levels, commerce and trade flows. Economic Distance increases cost (and sometimes, as in cases of disaster-delivery systems, loses lives) whilst Economic Opacity enables corruption, inefficiency, and lost revenue opportunities.

Economic Distance - The term "Economic Distance," in Freedom-Group language, refers to those species of Economic Distance which arise from non-tariff-related Technical Barriers to Trade and which operate to needlessly increase time-to-market, cost, and trade sclerosis. These technical barriers now constitute and remain-responsible-for some 22% of all artificial forms of Economic Distance worldwide. In many cases, governments unwittingly erect these non-tariff-related Technical Barriers to Trade whilst enacting and enforcing legitimate security oriented regimes. Whenever this happens, other nations - and importers therefrom - militate against such regimes (chiefly because they do not have ready-at-hand means to automate, say, certification or compliance with such regimes). Such disputes often unnecessarily grow protracted and costly. Many end up scaling WTO's dispute apparatus and never attain a workable solution, e.g., the controversy surrounding United States country of origin labeling requirements (COOL). America cannot abandon such labeling requirements and so, nations which must comply with said requirements need technology to ameliorate, eliminate, or offset costs that such reporting and labeling requirements impose [on their exporters]. These are the types of problems Freedom-Group aims to solve.

Economic Opacity - The term Economic Opacity, in Freedom-Group language, refers to that condition which, due (again) to non-tariff-borne Technical Barriers to Trade, breeds concrete absence of Economic Transparency. By this, we mean that said TBTs frustrate analysts from "drilling down" to sufficient degrees of granularity to visualize trade patterns, illegal technology transfers, and supply-chain metrics in government, multinational, or regulatory trade traffic. Opacity, in this sense, therefore means "absence of transparency." Below, we offer examples of Economic Opacity. Here, a brief and simple example will do: the UN system uses UNCCS. UNCCS lacks sufficient granularity to visualize "where" various anti-infective and anti-parasitic azole-compound drugs "go." This is because UNCCS cannot articulate these products to any greater granularity than, say, the key-value pair “341641, Compounds containing an un-fused imidazole ring in the structure.” As such, UN cannot "see" the 106-most-common imidazoles, half of which are indispensable anti-fungal and anti-infective drugs. If you cannot visualize this-or-that product (or ascertain its geographical or logical "location" at any moment), you cannot determine public need, institutional usage, effectiveness-of-delivery, or market share. This condition, relative to specific products and services, constitutes lack of transparency and therefore, "Economic Opacity." The Milken Institute is currently working on Economic Opacity.

Multilateralism - Multilateralism, in international relations, is the process by which multiple nation-states or intergovernmental organizations work in concert, most often to establish compatible or shared international law or standards. In regulatory and multinational concerns, this term bears a similar meaning insofar as it connotes cooperation (often of groups with competing interests) to establish standards which all participants in kind voluntarily implement. Below, we offer extensive discussion of the term Multilateralism as Freedom-Group applies and understands it. Here, a brief, simple example of Multilateralism will suffice: The United Nations Standard Products and Services Code system is a Multilateralism system (or rather, UNSPSC aims to be a true multilateral effort, but it has never fully achieved that goal, much to the frustration of non-US UNSPSC participants. This is a problem that Freedom-Group aims to correct).

ABOUT MULTILATERALISM

Multilateralism, in international relations, is the process of multiple nation-states or intergovernmental organizations working in concert, most often to establish compatible or shared international law or standards. In the geopolitical world, the most visible Multilateralism examples are United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU). Organizations that embody this multilateral approach include World Customs Organization (WCO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and World Trade Organization (WTO).

When applied to technologies (or transmission schema, classifications, nomenclatures, ontologies, and taxonomies), Multilateralism concerns nation-states, intergovernmental organizations, standards bodies, and multi- and trans-national corporations working together to create or increase compatibility between trade systems. Nation-states undertake this multilateralist approach to facilitate or speed customs clearance and trade-agreement compliance, or to increase traceability of WMD technologies. International organizations and multinational corporations undertake this multilateralist approach to increase trade transparency and supply-chain visualization.

A few examples of political Multilateralism:

A simple example is that since Lisbon, European Union national flags fly in EU capitals in alphabetical order according to the national language of each nation. This means that in German-speaking nations, Austria's flag does not appear early in the list (under the "A's"), but instead appears much later in the sequence (in the "O's,") because Austria's official name is "Österreich." Whilst this may initially seem like a frivolous example, is it anything but frivolous. Following this same principle, EURLEX publishes EU regulations in all EU languages, as seen here. This is one of Earth's most-successful synchronization systems, and it guarantees that all EU member states can understand and implement said regulations, because these regulations appear in their native language(s). Therefore, each EU member state can "see the same thing, at the same time, in its own language." This superimposes compatibility, comity, and parity throughout the European Union. This is an extraordinary, exemplary example of modern multilateralism in action. (The United Nations often undertakes similar efforts when publishing highly-sensitive documents, such as those that relate to nuclear proliferation).

Because EURLEX translations are official, they have special authority, and anyone (anywhere) can rely on these as authoritative restatements of EU law. To understand the power of such an approach, consider this link:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R1214:en:HTML

Note that inside this link, there exists an ISO 639-2 language identifier for English:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R1214:en:HTML

Change this ISO 639-2 language identifier to "bg" and you get Bulgarian:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R1214:bg:HTML

Change this ISO 639-2 language identifier to "de" and you get German:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R1214:de:HTML

By this not-so-simple operation, European Commission guarantees that its 27 member states can each see exactly the same thing at the same time, but each in their own language. This approach also means that identifiers and strings inside schema can auto-magically change from language-to-language as electronic transmissions traverse national borders. (Example: an electronic transmission that begins in France, traverses Germany, and arrives at final destination in Bulgaria can automatically, dynamically change from French to German to Bulgarian at will. Likewise, later metric analysis on historical data permits the same result: observers can derive their statistics and see their results in their own language, e.g., French researchers "see French," German researchers "see German," and Bulgarian researchers "see Bulgarian," all simultaneously). By this multilateral approach, therefore, European Commission has (in a limited way) solved the "Tower of Babel problem" described in Genesis 11:5–8. This is a splendid example of Multilateralism at work.

In like fashion, 180+ nation-states and two-dozen Free Trade Areas, Agreements, and Zones submit their tariff offers using WCO's Harmonized System (in America, Harmonized Tariff Schedule), each in their native languages. This facilitates and speeds trade agreements and free trade. This is so because by implementing HS, all participating nations "agree" that a given commodity, for purposes of tariff classification, is X (whatever "X" is). The Harmonized System is also one of Earth's most-successful Multilateralist implementations.
Freedom-Group is concerned with even more-advanced methods of Multilateralism, however. Freedom-Group concerns itself with Multilateralist efforts that derive "compound," or "multilevel" comity and parity. As one example, consider the codification of WMD-related technologies. Because WMD are of concern to all nations worldwide, governments have derived identification and regulation regimes that utilize two-or-more different Multilateral systems [to track WMD-related technologies]. For example, a combination of Harmonized System, European Dual-Use Goods List, U.S. Commerce Control List, and Chemical Weapons Convention. Intergovernmental agencies have created crosswalks of these multiple systems (and their identifiers) to increase national and international security. because of such crosswalks, any identifier [in any of these systems] is equivalent-to or can be used to derive any other identifier [in any of these systems]. To see an example of such cross walking, click here or here.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_131339.pdf
http://www.ic-szczecin.pl/tabela.xls
A few examples of multilateral efforts (or organizations that facilitate such efforts) in the international community or inside individual nation states [and which must comply with multiple standards or legal requirements) are:
Australia Group (AG)
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN)
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA, USA)
Defense Logistics Agency (DLIS, USA)
EUROSTAT (European Commission Statistics Division, Statistical Classifications)
Federal Information Processing Standards (US/NIST)
Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF)
IAEA's Nuclear Safety and Security Framework (IAEA)
IDABC (European Commission, Administrations, Businesses and Citizens)
IMF's Reports on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSCs)
International Maritime Organization (IMO/IMDG)
International Telecommunication Union (ITU/UN)
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)
National Information Exchange Model (NEIM, USA)
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NCS, Acod, STANAG)
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
OASIS (XML Standards)
UN Rules for EDI for Administration, Commerce and Transport (UN/EDIFACT)
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC/UNDP)
UNSTAT (United Nations Statistics Division)
US Armed Forces (FEDSPEC/MILSPEC)
Wassenaar Arrangement (WA/IML)
World Health Organization (WHO) (ATC)
A few industry-related or privatized examples of multilateral efforts (or organizations that
facilitate such efforts) are:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (e.g., ANSI C)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Arab Industrial Development and Mining Organization (AIDMO)
ASC/X12 (EDI Standards)
British Standards Institution (BSI)
ECL@SS Standard (ECL@SS)
Electronic Commerce Code Management Association (OETD)
EPCGlobal (GS1, Electronic Product Code)
ETIM International (ETIM, ETIM-BCAT)
European Diagnostic Manufacturers Association (EDMA)
Global Data Synchronisation Network (GDSN)
Global Medical Device Nomenclature Agency (GMDN)
Global Product Classification (GPC/GS1)
Global Standards Management Process (GSMP)
GS1 (by Nation)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Japan Electronics and Information Technologies Industry Association (JEITA)
Master Data Catalogue (MDC, SAP, NetWeaver)
OpenGroup (X/Open, POSIX)
Petroleum Industry Data Exchange (PIDX)
RosettaNet (PIP, Electronics)
Unicode Consortium (UTF-8, UTF-16)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
X-Org Foundation (X Window System)
Why does Freedom-Group take this stance?
Freedom-Group favors Multilateralism because it makes good economic sense from an evolutionary standpoint. For this reason, Freedom-Group champions the same species of Wilsonianism common to the diplomatic service. To qualify this stance, we turn to Dr. Kissinger. In his epic study, Diplomacy, Kissinger writes of contrasts between [Teddy] Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Wilson's press for an international order emanated from his understanding of power balance:
"What Wilson meant by 'community of power' was an entirely new concept that later became known as 'collective security...' Convinced that all the nations of the world had an equal interest in peace and would therefore unite to punish those who disturbed it, Wilson proposed to defend the international order by the moral consensus of the peace-loving."
Although Wilson's original model (The League of Nations) failed, for resurgence in isolationism and nationalism, history bore out his central thesis: commonality of interests in a legitimate international order. Today, the actual, philosophical, and political heir to Wilson's dream is the United Nations. Freedom-Group argues that this same principle, so inherent to modern diplomacy and regulatory administration, should also pervade all manner of standards that influence the global economy. Standards ought be comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of all participating parties in kind. And where this can be accomplished by conferring advantage to all participating parties (without also disadvantaging any party), this should be done. Like it or not, the "global economy" exists and is here to stay. On that basis, we ought construct systems that enhance rather than hinder its development, efficiency, fluidity, and transparency.
But herein lie the challenge for existing global economic, political, and trade systems. Whilst governments, NGOs, international bodies, and standards organizations have created policies and regulations to facilitate free trade, they have seldom inducted said Multilateralism into the IT systems that underpin global economic and trade systems.
As a result, Multilateral efforts aimed at reducing sclerotic economic and trade conditions have sometimes created bottlenecks by unintentionally erecting additional Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Freedom-Group aims to help loosen those bottlenecks.
Given the aforesaid, Freedom-Group's formal name, and focus all incisively articulate its mission, vision and goals: Freedom-Group's mission is to investigate means to Eliminate Economic Distance and Opacity via Multilateralism by correlating and interlinking existing statistical regimes, classifications, ontologies, nomenclatures, and taxonomies, and regulatory and private-industry schema that carry the same.
Freedom-Group's vision is that by such correlation and interlinking, Economic Distance and time-to-market will decrease and increase economic and trade transparency. Freedom-Group’s goals, when realized, would speed economic recovery, promote stouter economic health through more transparent trade, and increase national and international security in both developed and developing nations.

2017  Freedom-Group.org