[9415] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Aikens last (but long) posting/comments on ISOC and related issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Gingery)
Tue Jan 4 19:30:58 1994
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 17:09:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Gingery <lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu>
To: Miles R Fidelman <fidelman@civicnet.org>
Cc: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>, AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov, braden@isi.edu,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9401041401.A11220-0100000@world.std.com>
I'd like to make a couple of comments on the "starting list"...
On Tue, 4 Jan 1994, Miles R Fidelman wrote:
> I'd like to echo what Peter wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 1994, Peter Deutsch wrote:
[much deleted from previous posts to save bandwidth and improve readability]
> > 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.
There are plenty of examples of what to avoid. The standards mechanism
of RFCs has been pretty workable for the development of standards, and the
adoption with publication along the same routes makes the standards real.
One thing to avoid like a plague, is the ban on copying resumed by the
(former) CCITT, EIA, TIA.... Look at the MESS in the fax standards. The
documentation for standards which HAVE been adopted are strictly
controlled in distribution by copyrights. Vendors and manufacturers are
prevented from documenting their own products except by "reference", and
even then, the adoption of optional portions of the Class-2 draft or (hmmm
has the 2.0 standard been universally adopted as yet? I think not) 2.0,
is generally omitted.
This blockage on information flow has helped contribute to the morass
which is rising to blot out compatibility -- the original reason for the
standards.
> > c) Vendor-neutral forums for commercial entities
> > to meet and discuss their common problems.
In order to prevent monopolization, and its resultant ills, of emerging
technologies, I STRONGLY suggest that any standards organization make it
a precept to NOT adopt proprietary schemas as REQUIRED portions of any
given standard. IF that is a charter basis of any standards organization,
the capacity to keep the forums "vendor neutral" is greatly enhanced.
> > 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.
And serve as consultant to the various lawmakers of the world, who
generally are into the 1950s or 1960s (or lower) level of understanding of
the technical issues. A lot of unnecessary restriction can be the direct
result of ignorance.
> > e) a representative voice before both governmental
> > agencies and other standards setting bodies
> > throughout the world.
Exactly, at least in a consultative position, with regards to
governmental agencies and lawmakers. IF the individuals in such bodies can
be shown that international cooperation is the ONLY way to prevent
multi-national vendor monopolization of technologies (big brother's big
brother??)... And if the standards of various bodies conflict, what is
the use of either.
> So, perhaps the real question we need to address is: What institutional
> mechanisms - standards, regulatory, political, etc. - are needed to
> support the long-term health and viability of the Internet; and how to we
> act to put these mechanisms in place?
That would seem to sum it up in a nutshell!
Bruce Gingery lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu
