[10707] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: clarifying NAP discussions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Sirbu)
Sun Mar 6 14:26:11 1994
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 11:04:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com, Miles R Fidelman <fidelman@civicnet.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9403051144.A23263-0100000@world.std.com>
Excerpts from internet.com-priv: 5-Mar-94 Re: clarifying NAP discussions
by Miles R Fidelman@civicne
> ii. if so, how should the rules for the NAP be set -- by whom and by what
> process?
>
> under FCC authority, delegated to a joint board of the IAB/IETF/ISOC, the
> CIX, FARNET, a representative of the Federal networks, and an
> international representative
Given the levels of technical expertise at the FCC and the fact that it
only got on the Internet for the first time two weeks ago, I would much
rather see the NSF attempt to make policy in this area than the FCC.
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Communications Act, the
FCC could not, even if it wanted to, delegate authority to such a joint
board such as you describe.
>
> iii. is there a need to link together the rule-setting for the NAPs, the
> CIX, the FIXs, and the GIX? do we need some agreement on how these all
> play together, and if so how do we make this happen?
>
> see above
>
> iv. what should the rules be
>
> something pretty much like the CIX rules: anyone can interconnect, and
> everyone has to accept traffic from everyone else without settlements
>
Now we see that the reason you want to change the forum for decision
making is that you want a particular outcome--namely no settlements.
First, I think it highly unlikely that an FCC run process would come to
the conclusion that no settlements is the best policy; they are quite
use to ordering settlements in the telephone world. However, I also
believe that no settlements is bad public policy, so I wouldn't be sorry
to see that outcome.
Marvin Sirbu
