[9391] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: More on clarfication of ISOC - actually a reply to Noel's post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Braden)
Mon Jan 3 13:37:06 1994
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 10:34:25 -0800
From: braden@isi.edu (Bob Braden)
To: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, ietf@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us,
Bob,
As one of the "many hands" who has been concerned with the technical
and managerial aspects of the Internet for 16 years, I will have to
admit to a certain degree of distress with your message to Noel about
ISOC.
*>
*> 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?
*>
Actually, I think the ISOC newsletter and the INET conferences are
sufficient answer to this question. I pay my dues (out of my own
pocket), and I think I get value for my money.
Yes, the US government supported (and still supports) the IETF and the
standards process. But I understand that the US government has for
some years expressed a desire to stop funding it. The ISOC was
developed by the existing leadership of the IETF in hopes it would be
able to fill that funding gap and allow the good work to continue.
*> 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 believe that internetwork protocol engineering and standardization
cannot feasibly by accomplished by anarchy. Some organizational
arrangement and machinery is required. Technical judements must be
made IN ADVANCE of marketing, hence you cannot invoke the magic market
forces to decide among competing technical alternatives. There seems
no choice but to set up an administrative mechanism (which could be
considered a form of peer review), to promote the good ideas and to
apply some back-pressure against the occasional bad idea. This implies
chartering working groups, reviewing their progress, and ultimately
approving their work. Some group of people has to do this. The IETF
has a mechanism for choosing this group in a quasi-democratic fashion,
sufficient to make it very likely that good ideas will be accepted and
bad ones rejected.
Now, there is a problem: how to protect that group of experts who do
the organizing and judging from law suits. The ISOC is the (only)
solution that has been proposed for that. As you say, you are not a
lawyer, and I am not a lawyer. We can only take the word of lawyers.
I have heard the word that the ISOC will provide some protection. Do
you have contrary information? Do you have an alternative suggestion?
Would you feel more comfortable if the Internet standards development
was performed by an industrial consortium, say AT&T, IBM, DEC, GM,
...? Would you feel more comfortable if Internet standards development
were under the US government auspices? The government of Finland? The
UN?
I don't recall objections similar to yours directed at the IEEE.
*>
*> 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?
*>
*>
*>
*> 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.
*>
I don't quite understand your great concern here; it is a non-issue as
far as I know. There has never been a suggestion that the ISOC would
control operation of the Internet. There has been a suggestion that
the ISOC could serve as a locus for organizing coordination groups to
help iron out operational issues, but at present there is no concensus
that this is needed, and it won't happen until there is a concensus.
*>
*> 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?
*>
Note that the objective of ISOC taking over funding of the standards
activities depends upon widespread acceptance and support of ISOC's
goals and activities.
Bob, when important voices like yours are raised in opposition to ISOC,
it hurts ISOC. People assume that you are expressing the views of
others in the US government. It hurts me, too, since it devalues the
$$$ I pay for membership in ISOC. And I believe it harms the interest
of the Internet community as a whole.
Bob Braden
