|
Board of Trustees2003 Board ElectionCandidatesCandidate Profile: Christian de Larrinagacdel@firsthand.net Some analysis in the IETF reflects that Internet's protocol stack can be described in a simplified three layer model of
Transmission covers the physical connectivity. Internet describes the addressing and routing protocols within and between networks and Applications the tools and services that run over the Internet. We can also describe a three layer model for the societal or higher level functions of Internet in terms of a top down protocol stack.
In RFC's 1958 and 3439 an outline is presented of an architectural vision behind protocol creation. Even if protocols have been achieved in an ad hoc way they collectively represent a living architecture of inter-networking that has consequences for the creation of new protocols and the way users and societies view, respond and impact the Internet's evolution. Prior history matters on the Internet as it does elsewhere. This architecture needs to describe not only the engineering protocol layers but also the societal. The creation of Standards in IETF and elsewhere can be seen as a process that specifies an overall vision of inter-networking where certain principles can be understood to apply. As much of the shape of major institutions, social structures including businesses, and governments are increasingly adopting Internet protocols to manage their core communication and information services so the influence of Internet architecture impacts the architectural structure of society as a whole. Quite how this vision is defined and who has a role in achieving it is a question which lies at the heart of societal governance in the twenty-first century. Trustees of the Internet
Society have a responsibility of good governance oversight in trust for
the Internet community over the process for development of Internet Standards
in an open and sustainable way in the IETF and for the Internet's documentation
by the RFC-Editor. It is also vitally important to the stability of the Internet that the Standards process is managed on a sustainable long-term basis. Internet is not created through standardised protocols alone. To achieve inter-networks, protocols have to be implemented by building technologies that use them and then deploying these in a network and interconnecting with other networks. This second societal layer of implementation shapes Internet at least as much as the design of the underlying protocols. Implementation requires shared business models, societal protocols, and the development of mutually beneficial relationships as well as open and efficient management of unique resources such as addressing, names, port numbers and Autonomous System numbers. Many members of the Internet Society are involved in the Implementation layer but the Internet Society does not have a formal management role as a Society. The recent award of .org for the ISOC offshoot Public Interest Registry is an exception that perhaps proves the rule. The opportunity exists as suggested in IETF to raise funding from the distribution and management of a few key resources that are the output of IETF to sustain and build a stable independent financial resource. Whatever the method the definition of a supportable and sustainable funding regime for IETF should form part of the ISOC trustees remit over the next months. Users have a very important role in Internet management due to the "end to end" architectural principle (rfc 1958). The end to end principle holds "as a first principle, certain required end-to-end functions can only be performed correctly by the end-systems themselves." User devices are the ends of the network so it is clearly important for Internet management that users have management access, control opportunities and knowledge. It takes user power to connect, speak, innovate, share and choose. These five abilities Mike Nelson ISOC's v-p of public policy has defined in a recent note and which I believe lie at the heart of the public policy message of the Internet's end-to-end architecture. We find the confluence of influences of the two lower societal layers in this third upper public policy societal layer. Recent debates in influential public policy circles are starting to focus on the reflexivity of technologies and management structures of key Internet resources to broader societal regulations and political requirements. (OII CMLP conference, Oxford 2003) Clearly much thinking in terms of communications infrastructure are still vested with telecoms industry based centralized control methodologies, and rely for policy implementation on intelligence within the network which in terms of Internet needs revision to reflect the importance of understanding intelligence end-to-end. ISOC Trustees have a responsibility to promote public policy realignment to the perspective of user interests as the enabler of end-to-end connectivity. Perspectives global and local The three societal layers of Internet are played out in the real world where uniformity from area to area does not exist in the same way as achieved through global engineered protocol standards. Variations in human relations, languages, cultures, religions, wealth, lifestyles, educational attainment, institutions, infrastructural development and impact of wars, over population, institutionalized debt and indoctrination all play their part in complicating the physical landscape for Internet. Some issues have technical resonance and can be at least partially resolved through further work in IETF and elsewhere. As in non-English character sets which until IDN have had problems using the ASCII (characters) Domain Name System. Existing vested interests that appear to be threatened include national incumbent telephone operators dependant on ITU accounting rate based revenues and regulatory environments that censor content on societal and political grounds. These are complex areas to resolve from a global perspective. For instance despite protections on "free speech" in the USA content censorship on the Internet is prevalent both through powers in the DMCA and in regards paedofiles and other unacceptable behaviour, even as many in the US were scandalized by the French government's approach to the Yahoo nazi memorabilia case. Data Retention and logging of users Internet activities has enormous implications on freedom to use Internet as a private space. But then how do we ensure an orderly and law abiding society and public space? Convergence issues between telephone, tv, radio, and data networks are forcing new thinking to occur on content management using Internet. In the UK, media specific regulators have been abandoned in favour of a single pan media super regulator OFCOM. Does this approach make it more or less likely that pressure from TV regulators for content regulation will be attempted on Internet? In general terms these issues have both global and local perspectives. There are some themes which are similar and implementation issues of applying local measures within a global environment raise issues of jurisdiction and enforcement. In the end these issues can only be resolved globally if they are first being looked at locally. ISOC chapters offer an ideal way to promote and develop the end-to-end user perspective into the local arena and offer insight and lessons that emerge from that arena into global thinking. Chapters also represent themselves to local institutions as the local ISOC chapter. Where distinctions exist between a global and local perspective there needs to be much greater communication and integrated activities between chapters and other ISOC communities so that ISOC energises globally rather than divides globally. We cannot expect uniformity nor homogeneity but we should ensure that ISOC itself has clear lines of communication and responsibilities. Liaison role of chapters has recently been highlighted in Europe with an MoU devised in Copenhagen last December to establish a formal permanent structure representing ISOC chapters with the purpose of interfacing with European Union institutions. Clearly this is an area where the IAB and the ISOC trustees are already working as are ISOC chapters and so the perspectives, relationships, and responsibilities need to be understood and manageable between the various parties. This is why it is a shame that the MoU was devised without giving time for the involvement of the entire community of interest including the ISOC executive and trustees. The interplay between what is local and what is global needs more fundamental examination and consensus building across the whole ISOC community over the next few months if ISOC is to energise the local communities where the bulk of ISOC's membership potential lies. In my view not only is it wrong for chapters to attempt to impose (even inadvertently) a settlement on ISOC but it is equally wrong for the opposite to occur. We need to establish clear principles of how ISOC as a community interrelates and establish the role and function and responsibilities of the board of trustees and executive throughout the whole Internet Society. So if elected as a trustee I would wish to see the following resolve over the coming months:
|
