[9368] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Clarificationon ISOC and its charter please- was discussion on problems on AUP and varuous newtworks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Noel Chiappa)
Thu Dec 30 23:31:11 1993
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 23:30:03 -0500
From: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
To: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov, amr@cnri.reston.va.us, com-priv@psi.com,
Cc: hwb@sdsc.edu, isoc-trustees@cnri.reston.va.us, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu,
I subscribe to the Dave Clark motto - no kings, but running code.
I'm in general agreement with what Tony says - the Internet is a giant
cooperative of autonomous entities, but we do need *some* forum to agree on
technical standards in, lest we suffer the fate of the Tower of Babel - but I
thought I'd take minor issue with this line, and also say a few things in
defense of the ISOC I've been meaning to say for some years, but never got
around to.
Not that I disagree with the general sentiment, which is that there is no
ruler of the Internet. The Internet seems to be the closest thing to a
functioning anarchy my knowledge of history reveals. However, it still has a
King (no, *not* Elvis, you fools :-).
He came up with the idea of internetworking way back, saw that the original
research was funded, and has continued to play a *major* role in making the
Internet a success. The Internet is the work of many hands, and probably
nobody was really irreplacable, but I have a hard time imagining the Internet
without him.
I know that some people are dubious about his motivations sometimes,
(particularly with regard to the ISOC), but I truly believe that he is (as
much as any of we imperfect humans can ever be) working with the best
interests of the community at heart (as all great Kings do). In particular, I
can attest to the need for the ISOC. I will digress here a bit, and explain a
key piece which led to the ISOC getting started. (You can all blame *me* for
causing the creation of it, if you'd like, although I don't deserve any of the
credit, which goes elsewhere. :-)
Two others (who will remain nameless, but I know who you are :-) and I were
sitting around a table in the speaker's dining room at Interop some years ago,
discussing how to get vendors to respond in a timely fashion to security bugs
in their code. We wondered if perhaps US product liability law (a standing
joke, I know) might be put to *some* good use, to scare vendors into fixing
security bugs in something less than their usual geological time scale for bug
fixes. I volunteered to enquire of my attorneys, and a very nice gentleman
from the Washington office of Hale and Dorr started looking into liability
issues and the network for me, providing info which was passed on to an ad-hoc
group. In addition to much useful information about vendors, he pointed out to
use that *standards organizations* were liable to a variety of liability
claims, including US anti-trust.
As a way to avoid all sorts of potential nasty legal problems, two things
resulted from this. First, the increasing formality of the standards
proceedures. Second, the ISOC. Prior to the creation of this legal entity
(recall that prior to that, the IETF, IAB et all were all ad-hoc groups with
no legal basis), *almost every person reading this mail* could conceivably
have been found legally liable in the event of a suit over either a protocol
fault, or restraint of trade when one proposal lost out to another.
I know that there has been some unhappiness over the details of the creation
of the ISOC, and I agree that some things could perhaps have been done in a
different way. However, I fully expect that in years to come these minor
hassles will be forgotten, whilst we will come to a point where we can't
imagine how we could ever have gotten along without the ISOC. I believe it
took a lot of hard work to make the ISOC happen, and perhaps the amount of
work needed was larger than the energy available, which resulted in some of
the things people were unhappy with. However, make no mistake: we *absolutely*
needed the ISOC, and I don't think anyone else would have been willing to do
what it took to make it happen.
The future of the ISOC is obviously unclear; it could degenerate, but I don't
believe this is likely (at least for a long time yet). I believe that there
are good reasons to enter into liasison arrangements with other international
entities, etc. The Internet is not an toy anymore. It's frighteningly real,
and becoming more so. In my view, we have two choices: to step up our
governance and sense of responsibility, and continue to have a role in guiding
the Internet, or fail, and watch all that power pass to others, who will, I
*assure* you, not do as good a job as we have done to date. The ISOC
represents, in my view, the best chance to prevent the latter course. It is a
reasonably democratic organization, and I hope everyone on this list will
participate fully in the ISOC to keep it on the right path.
Also, to generalize from the specific case here, perhaps we can all be a
little more generous in our understanding of others? I don't mean to ignore
the low motivations of this world (of which there are plenty, and we must
guard against them), but the thing I've always liked most about the IETF
community was the generally high personal quality of the people in it. We have
a lot of disagreements over how to proceed, but I find they are generally well
meant. Let's not lurch from naivety to cynicism, yah?
Anyway, this is already too long, but I just wanted to say what I've felt for
a long time: there really is a King of the Internet. You all know who he is...
"Pericles indeed, by his rank, ability, and known integrity, was enabled
to exercise an independant control over the multitude - in short, to lead
them, instead of being led by them; for as he never sought power by
improper means, he was never compelled to flatter them, but, on the
contrary, enjoyed so high an estimation that he could afford to anger them
by contradiction." - Thucydides
Noel
PS: These are all my thoughts, not his, so if you disagree with what I say,
don't blame him for them. And a Happy New Year to you all! :-)
