[9380] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
More on clarfication of ISOC - actually a reply to Noel's post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov)
Sun Jan 2 23:27:29 1994
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 20:25:12 -0800 (PST)
From: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov
To: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, com-priv@psi.com, ietf@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us
Cc: isoc-trustees@cnri.reston.va.us, hwb@sdsc.edu, amr@cnri.reston.va.us,
Noel Chiappa says :
>> 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 :-).
I highly respect the person to whom you refer - however I am one of those
upstart fools that doesn't believe in the omnipotence of kings,
royalty, Presidents etc,. They earn my respect from actions not station.
In addition, given the large number of equally motivated and talented
personnel who have been working on the evolution of the Internet and
networking technologies, I think you do them and him a disservice by
refering to him as a king.
>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
Again, not to belittle his contibutions, but it has taken the hard work,
vision, and talent of many organizations and hundreds - if not thousands-
of individuals to make the Internet what it is today.
>nobody was really irreplacable, but I have a hard time imagining the Internet
>without him.
YES!
>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
What needs have the ISOC addressed that you can attest to - remember
that the IETF and the standards was in progress before the ISOC - so that
does not qualify?
>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.
The intent may have been good but I personally ( I'm no lawyer nor
claim to be - but having observed our legal system ...) don't see
how the ISOC with its current (or proposed ammendments -as
of last draft I saw) charter and bylaws ,and having claimed "governence"
over the IETF and the standards process, is any less liable now than before.
>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 has the ISOC done to date that would not have happened anyway via
the efforts of concerned groups and individuals?
>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
This is where we diverge. I don't believe that many companies will
abdicate responsibility and governance for their own networks and
associated business and operational issues. Why would I, hypothetically
speaking as business "a", wish to have ISOC Govern my networking activities?
Again I think we are missing the point. I was asking whether the ISOC
was promulgating assuming "operational" responsibility (for with governess
comes responsibility ) for networks owned and operated by private
organizations and governements, or whether it was asserting responsiblity
for standards activities only?
>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
Whether one set of orgs do a better job than others is not an issue when
those orgs own and operate their own networks. What gives the ISOC , or
any other entity the right to "govern" the activities of privately, or
evenly government (internationally) financed network operations?
Why should'nt the power rest with those that fund the efforts? Why would
any private network entitty abdicate control over its own business? Again
I ask, since to me at least, there is a major difference between stewarding
a standards process (as tough as that is) and trying to steward an
operational process (over independent network service providers). IF you
think the liability and legal problems associated with a standards body
is intimidating wait till you see the gaggle of anti-trust and other
lawyers licking their chops when you venture into an area that DIRECTLY
affects a business and the way it is conducted (or not) on an
international level. And my ignorant assumption would be that the
trustees are as liable as anyone else since they are at the top
of the food chain.
>*assure* you, not do as good a job as we have done to date. The ISOC
First, having done a good job before does not guarantee that an org
will continue to do a good job,especially considering that the methods
and culture employeed on lower scale enterprises usually do not scale
well for those enterprises that grown exponentially and have reached
the size and diversity of the Internet. I cast no stones - yet I make
no assumptions.
Look at what it has taken in the IPng (used to be ROAD, used to be ...)
activities and process (time frame, etc.).
>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
I agree with your statement about the quality and intent of the people
involved.
>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?
Sorry Noel - If I remember correctly you have always been an outspoken
critic (because you believed in your point of view) on various issues for
a long time - why is it cynicism when someone else questions the status
quo belief/religion?
I offer these comments in the same spirit I communicate with my elected
and appointed state and federal officials - not as a cynic - rather as a
Concerned Member Of the Tribe (CMOT).
your humble colleague
bob aiken
