[9385] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: More on clarfication of ISOC - actually a reply to Noel's post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Noel Chiappa)
Mon Jan 3 10:02:34 1994
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 10:00:15 -0500
From: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
To: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov, com-priv@psi.com, ietf@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us,
Cc: amr@cnri.reston.va.us, hwb@sdsc.edu, isoc-trustees@cnri.reston.va.us,
This isn't really worth inundating people's mailboxes over, but you've
severely misinterpreted what I said (ignoring what I said in one place, to put
your own "spin" on something I said somewhere else), and I want to set that
straight.
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.
> Not that I disagree with the general sentiment, which is that there is no
> ruler of the Internet.
given the large number of equally motivated and talented personnel who
have been working on the evolution of the Internet ..., I think you do
them ... a disservice by refering to him as a king. ...
Again, not to belittle his contibutions, but it has taken the hard work,
vision, and talent of many organizations and ... individuals to make the
Internet what it is today.
> The Internet is the work of many hands, and probably nobody was really
> irreplacable
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?
> *standards organizations* were liable to a variety of liability claims,
> including US anti-trust. ... the ISOC. Prior to the creation of this
> legal entity ... *almost every person reading this mail* could 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 ...) don't see ... how the ISOC having claimed "governence" over the
IETF and the standards process, is any less liable now than before.
Since you're not a lawyer, maybe you should consult one knowledgable in the
area of standards organization liabilities before making statements in this
area. I'd be happy to provide the name and number of the person at Hale and
Dorr who did all the work for me. Much as we may all dislike the rules, and
agree they are silly, they are still the rules, and you can still get your ass
hauled into court under them (and I have, and it's damned painful). At that
point, cute rhetoric about the deficiencies of the legal system will get you
sqaut. But I digress.
The *ISOC* is still liable. *We* aren't. This is a point of some worth.
Also, some of the (onerous and bureacratic, sigh) changes in the rules for the
operation of the IETF have put us on far firmer legal ground.
What has the ISOC done to date that would not have happened anyway via
the efforts of concerned groups and individuals?
See above.
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?
> I'm in general agreement ... the Internet is a giant cooperative of
> autonomous entities ...
> The Internet seems to be the closest thing to a functioning anarchy my
> knowledge of history reveals.
I never suggested that the ISOC/IETF take over running anybody's network.
However, they do have a role to play in ensuring continued interoperability
across a global internet, and *that role* has to be performed well (i.e., it
needs governance).
I was asking whether the ISOC was promulgating assuming "operational"
responsibility (for with governess [sic] comes responsibility) for
networks owned and operated by private organizations and governements, or
whether it was asserting responsiblity for standards activities only?
Standards alone will not ensure an operational global network. Some
coordination in the *application* of those standards is needed (e.g. in
assignment of addresses). The theory is that the ISOC is a natural forum for
such *cooperative* operational coordination (although not the *IETF*, which is
best suited left doing exactly what it is doing, creating standards). Exactly
how much coordination is needed is as yet unclear, and that is a separate
point as to whether it is best done under the ISOC umbrella, or some other
umbrella.
However, the fact remains that *some* global coordination *will* be needed,
and if we don't do it in the ISOC we'll have to do it in something else. I
don't think zillions of bi-lateral agreements is going to do it, particularly
for things with system-wide ramifications (e.g. adddress assignment). What do
you propose?
And again, my use of "governance" referred to the responsible functioning of
the ISOC/IETF, not any autonomous entities, which are obviously outside our
scope.
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?
See above.
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.
My knowledge of the operation of other cooperative systems, particularly
international ones, is rather hazy, but my understanding is that things such
as the US electric grid (which is a collection of cooperating autonomous
entities) have faced this issue (of operational issues which are beyond the
scope of any one constituent entity) within the context of industry
organizations. I think the Internet faces a more difficult operational
coordination problem because of the extreme complexity of the service it
provides, and the high rate of growth and change in the substrate, so I'm not
sure we can use their models exactly, though..
> 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?
It's not cynical to differ on technical or organizational matters. It's
cynical to assume (and so state, in arguing about such matters) that someone's
*motivations* for disagreeing are purely of the basest sort. (E.g. short-term
self interest, with no regard to either the long term, or other people, or
good design, or anything else.) It is against the latter that I warn.
I offer these comments ... not as a cynic - rather as a Concerned Member
Of the Tribe
Understood.
Noel
