[9405] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Aikens last (but long) posting/comments on ISOC and related issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Deutsch)
Tue Jan 4 12:53:33 1994
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 12:42:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov's message as of Jan 4, 7:49
To: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov, braden@isi.edu, ietf@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us,
Cc: isoc-trustees@cnri.reston.va.us, vcerf@cnri.reston.va.us,
Hi all,
My first reaction to this thread when it started was "I
don't have time for this kind of stuff right now" but as
things have progressed I find it has been quite useful for
me to be prompted into some year-end reflections on what I
as a member expect out of the Internet Society. In that
spirit, here's some pseudo-random responses to Bob Aiken's
last message, spiced with a soupcon of reply from Vint's
last note and baked by the low-grade fever from my
steadily worsening flu....
[ Bob Aiken wrote: ]
> I would like to apologize in advance for this long msg so only
> read on if you wish. . . .
What he said...
> . . . I also intend this to be my last since this
> takes much to much time (away from other work) and yes many
> are probably getting tired of the thread.
Although this may be Bob's last post on the subject, I
doubt this will the end of the thread, nor should it be.
Any group that claims to represent an entire community,
whether it be ISOC or the local PTA, needs a healthy
on-going debate about its values, goals and such. In
paticular, since we're all still building both the
Internet and ISOC, we should welcome the chance to talk
about what it is we're all working on. In that spirit...
. . .
> 2) I was distressed with Bob Braden's being distressed with
> my statements/questions. I have been trying to ascertain
> what the ISOC is - I thought it was a professional society- yet
> I see that it claims governance over the IETF (who by the
> way may not share the same understanding) and its standards
> process.
Personally, I think it more useful to ask "what do we need
from the Internet Society" and work from this list
forward, rather than say "this is the list of things
professional societies do" and work backwards from that.
If that means that ISOC takes on roles not seen in other
similar groups, as far as I'm concerned that's great.
As for the particular issue of the ISOC taking on the role
of parent to the IETF, I think there has been a fair and
honest attempt to explain the changes in governing
structure at the IETF over the past year and why the
changes were needed. We've been presented with summaries
of the legal issues involved, there was an open process in
which the structure was proposed and debated and now we
have a structure in place which is pretty well documented
for those who care to pick up the appropriate documents
and study them.
The structure may not be perfect, but it _is_ a structure
and a mechanism is there for those who don't like it to
attempt to change it. I don't think things are perfect (for
example, personally I think we need a bit more openess in
such areas as the selection process for IESG and IAB
members), but I think it was not a bad start.
> . . . In addition, every time I ask for
> clarification of the ISOC and its scope it ranges from a
> professional society to a standards process to an operational
> forum.
To quote Saturday Night Live: "It's a dessert topping!
It's a floor wax!". Since its inception, ISOC seems to
have taken on several different roles. If you think that
any one of them are inappropriate, as a member you're free
to say so. If you think there are others it should take on
that it's missed so far, ditto. Of course, there is then
some onus on you to get involved to help make it happen.
I personally have no problems with ISOC promoting
education and network growth in developing countries,
supervising standards setting activities for the Internet
and/or providing a neutral forum for operational entities
to meet and discuss their collective problems, if those
are the problems that members perceive need to be addressed
right now. There's only so many people around willing to
devote some of their time to such volunteer activities, we
all have too much other work to do and the present group
seem to be a pretty good bunch of people. _I_ certainly
don't have time to be doing such activities right now and
am glad that there are others willing to do it in my name.
Here's another thing to consider when questioning whether a
specific activity is appropriate for ISOC. Given how much
work there is to do to maintain that exponential growth
curve we're all so proud of, I doubt there's either the
energy or the resources to have multiple forums for such
activities. At the same time there seems to be plenty of
opportunity for synergy among the various participants
when we have one body in touch with all the players, as
ISOC is now.
Of course, we all need to keep an eye on this as things
develop, but assuming we don't find the efforts of ISOC
becoming too diluted I find the fact that the organization
has taken on a variety of roles to be a healthy
development right now.
If we examine the needs of the Internet community at this
point in our history, we can identify lots of things that
need to be done. Among other things, we need:
a) a stable, workable standards setting mechanism.
b) mechanisms for dissemination of information
and education, both in developed networking
environments and in areas where networking has
yet to take off.
c) Vendor-neutral forums for commercial entities
to meet and discuss their common problems.
d) Someone to keep an eye on the legal and moral
issues, such as export laws, questions of copyright
and intellectual property and a whole lot more.
e) a representative voice before both governmental
agencies and other standards setting bodies
throughout the world.
and so on...
Now, this list is far from complete, and I'm not arguing
that ISOC need play a role in all of the above. Nor should
we think that ISOC would be the _only_ forum for
discussing any of these issues, but since presumably ISOC
is whatever we the members make of it, I don't see any
harm in the ISOC getting involved in any of the above
areas to some degree.
On the other hand, if it is decided by the ISOC
membership, for example, that a group such as the EFF
should take the lead in defining intellectual property
issues, then at least it was done with a conscious choice,
and not through nature's abhorance of a vacuum.
> . . . Since its been hard to know what the ISOC is - its been
> hard to relate to it. Vint has just recently (again) said that the
> ISOC is NOT interested in operational issues- . . .
I'm not sure that Vint actually said ISOC is _not_
interested in operational issues. What he wrote was
"At no time has ISOC taken the view that it should
be involved in the operation of parts of the Internet..."
There certainly seems room for a coordinating role here,
with ISOC acting as an honest broker in bringing together
those who wish to discuss operational issues. I would
think this is within the scope of ISOC's mission to
promote the Internet. Again, it may be decided eventually
that separate bodies are appropriate for such activities,
but given how few hours there are in the day, I welcome
a bit of debate _within_ ISOC to get things going.
> . . . yet I then see many
> people (whom I assume are ISOC affiliates )
> say that the ISOC should GOVERN ,or steer, or deal with
> operational or interoprability issues (and it wasn't clear to me
> at least that they are talking about standards only )
> - so I never know what to make of it.
How about concluding that as a representative body, it's
members are allow to contribute to the debate on what the
group should be doing? I would find the existence of
multiple voices with multiple views a healthy and natural
consequence of the community's rejection of kings and
benevolent dictatorships (well, we do actually seem to
tolerate benevolent dictatorships, provided they stay
benevolent. Still, it's not a pretty sight when one of the
dictators steps out of line! ;-)
. . .
> As far as the ISOC newsletter - well I hope the ISOC was formed
> for more than a newsletter (no matter how good) - the INET
> conferences are an offsoot of the NET conferences (that already
> had an international audience) so that doesn't qualify.
Well, I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss the work ISOC does
on the INET conferences like this. The fact is, the
conferences are now being organized under the auspices of
ISOC and in so doing, ISOC's mission is influencing how
the conferences turn out. For example, there is now a
specific effort to get people there from the as yet
unconnected parts of the world, with preconference
tutorials, travel grants and so on. There has also been
specific efforts to broaden the community, holding
conferences outside the U.S. and so on. I think these are
welcome moves.
If you look at the list of deliverables since its inception,
ISOC doesn't seem to be doing to badly. For your $70, you get:
- the newsletter
- the INET conference (and in particular, the
effort to provide sponsorship and training for
those from as-yet unconnected regions)
- some legal status for the IETF's activities
- high-level contacts with governments around the world
- a contact point for media seeking Internet info
- Someone with the proper training keeping an eye
out for our legal behinds on other issues that
may loom up to bite us as we all attempt to get
on with building the Internet
- a place where initial discussions can take place on
issues in a vendor-neutral forum
There's more, but I'm already able to conclude that my
money has been pretty well spent.
> . . .Also,
> I though the concept of "automatically" registering attendees
> of the INET conferences as ISOC members (even for a 6 month
> period) was in poor taste. This was NOT voluntary membership
> per se.
Well, given that you were told that INET was sponsored by
the Internet Society, it seemed appropriate. Now, a box
saying "no thanks" might have been a nice touch (and there
may have been, since I didn't make it last year I can't
say for sure). Still, personally I don't think this was
out of line.
> . . . This was
> not questioning if ISOC should exist - although until a very clear
> definition and scope is firmly established and consistently
> reinforecd throughout the ISOC its hard to know if I object to the
> ISOC's existence or not ...
That seems a bit unfair. With such a young organization in
such a rapidly changing field I think it fair that some
debate exists as to goals and methods. Heck, I would think
that this should continue for the forseeable future. If
the debate stopped, it would seem to mean either that
we're done or that ISOC had become irrelevant.
Enough for now. I tend to be a Pollyanna, seeking out the
good in things, but I think that for such a new
organization in such a rapidly changing field, ISOC is
doing all right. There's lots more I'd like to see done,
but since I don't personally have the time to volunteer I
don't complain when others don't either. For those who
really want to see change, I'd encourage you to get
involved.
Just one member's opinions...
- peterd
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do thay got, a whole lot of sand? We got a hot crustacean band!
Each little clam here, know how to jam here! Under the Sea!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
