[9421] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Aikens last (but long) posting/comments on ISOC and related issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV))
Wed Jan 5 03:32:31 1994
To: Simon Poole <poole@magnolia.eunet.ch>
Cc: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov, braden@isi.edu, ietf@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us,
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 05 Jan 94 00:31:48 +0100. <199401042329.AAA01038@chsun.eunet.ch>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 94 09:31:25 +0100
From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>
Simon,
> Erik, I do believe there is legitimate concern what exactly the scope of
> the ISOC and the IETF is and in how far self-elected representatives
> of the "Internet" intend to regulate the way we do business.
I have no argument with that, (except maybe that I don't see what you mean
by self elected, are you refering to IESG/IAB? these are nominated by the
IETF?) and I said so in my mail to BOB. However I do
take argument against false accusations, based on incongruous
interpretation, like your example below:
>
> An example from the IETF area that you oversee, a couple of excerpts from
> the proposed charter for the CXII working group:
>
> > 3. SCOPE
> >
> > CXII will make no initial assumptions about how these networks will be
> > interconnected. All aspects (financial, legal and policy-oriented, and
> > technical) will be discussed.
> .......
> > Issues Identified to Date
> >
> .......
> > 2) Legal representation for the Internet
> > - How should contracting be done for the Internet side
> .......
> > 4) Business model
Let me state that CXII is initiated by a group of people who think these
issues are important and need dealing with. Specifically the EEMA has asked
the IETF to provide such a group, and see whther it can come up with
suggestions/recommendations that can be used by the EEMA.
Now all of the potential ADs (incl. me) have been very sceptical about this
group belonging in IETF. Finally we have said: We are willing to offer a
home to this, if a) there is a constituency, b) if they could get commercial
operators (Internet and ADMD) to get involved and participate, c) if they
limited the scope to what the EEMA asked (i.e. X.400 connectivity).
So far CXII is not yet a WG of the IETF, it may still become one, if we get
the conditions fullfilled. Whether that is appropriate to Isoc/IETF is
surely an item for discussion, and that's why I started the debate on
establishment of an IOTF, which was torpedoed by secveral people, although
everybody seemed to agree at some level that such a body was necessary, most
of the paranoid ones yelled that it should not be under Isoc. As I have no
problem with starting off outside of Isoc, that's fine with me. Although in
the long run we may need to give it some legal status and Isoc MAY (i say
MAY) turn out to be the best option.
Anyway the discussion on IETF fell short of resolving, because we could not
agree on how to start. IEPG seemed a good start, however the important
players for operational meetings that do deal with services rather than
infrastructure did not want to travel to an IEPG meeting before we had
siomething going that showed a chance of succes. Several people argued that
meeting at the same place and time (not necesarilly as part of) as an IETF,
would allow them to participate. That's when Scott offered a BOF, no strings
attached.
Unfortunately people like you and BOB now seem to misuse this as "smoke"
arguments in a discussion that deserves a more realistic approach, and more
serious debating.
Erik
