ndwork for meeting IIC's anticipated future OSS needs. TMF's critics, particularly those who support standards, claim that not enough of the group's work is actually implemented, and that not enough of the industry is involved in the group for it to be effective. These critics suggest that TMF has become a software vendor forum, without great participation from IICs or equipment vendors. They also argue that if the OSS industry needs a standards group at all, TMF is the one to use, and it could be highly effective if more of the industry actively participated. The problem is that though much of the industry wants standards in theory, companies are not willing to take the time to develop them. Those with the most potential influence are unlikely to become active unless there are obvious negatives for remaining aloof, which evidently there are not. The market does not seem to penalize vendors or IICs for being innovative - or for doing things the way they think is best. Often, however, this means segments of the OSS and communications equipment markets are uncoordinated in their developments. It seems generally agreed that TMN and the TMF's greatest contribution to the OSS world is that they created a common language and model for conceptualizing OSS networks. What began with the TMN (see Figure 1) functional model grew further with the Telecom Operations Map. The TMN The Ultimate Guide to Building and Delivering OSS/BSS model is generally accepted as the common icon for describing OSS, and many vendors and IICs have used the TOM to develop their application functionality or OSS implementation strategies. Beyond these basic models, there are very few standards in the OSS realm. Some prevalent technologies are considered de facto standards, but these can change at any time. These unofficial standards also span many industries, and are not necessarily OSS specific. For example, Oracle's database management applications have become "standard" fare for OSS packages. CORBA technologies, based on the standard developed b