[9382] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: More on clarfication of ISOC - actually a reply to Noel's post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hans-Werner Braun)
Mon Jan 3 05:17:57 1994
From: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun)
To: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 2:15:21 PST
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, ietf@cnri.reston.va.us, isoc-trustees@cnri.reston.va.us
In-Reply-To: <940102202512.20408d3e@CCC.NERSC.GOV>; from "AIKEN@CCC.NERSC.GOV" at Jan 2, 94 8:25 pm
To at least quite some degree I have to agree with Bob here in his
implication of distrust towards the ISoc in the context of the
requirements of the global operational Internet infrastucture. On a
number of occasions the IAB/IESG were in fact counterproductive
relative to the operational needs, and that had hurt already during the
first years of the NSFNET. Even before the BGP mess, for example, I
remember quite clearly that relative to the routing architecture I felt
that had we involved the IAB/etc. in the decision making process, that
we would not have been able to pull off the T1 Network in 1988 as
required in our agreement with the NSF. The IAB/IESG was just driven
by other goals than the needs of the operational environment. Todays
environment is even more complicated. Not an academic playground any
more, but at a (and continuing to be heading towards a) money making
enterprise. I am sure that the ISoc would be able to find it possible
to enumerate a number of things where they believe they contributed,
but in the larger scheme of relevant things, I am not sure they came
all that far. Both in terms of trust as well as accomplishments, as
compared to what would not exist today would the ISoc *not* be in
place. May be they could get there eventually, but methinks that would
require more than there is now, and I for one have my doubts.
Hans-Werner
PS: I am talking about IAB/ISoc/etc. as institutions here, rather than
about individuals (that often contributed more than the "institutions"
were able to provide).
