[governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jan 26 06:07:31 EST 2012
On Thursday 26 January 2012 03:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Trouble is, Parminder, that with Microsoft's dominance of operating
> systems at that time (over 10 years ago), any spam solution without
> them on board was a waste of time.
Also, such monopolistic dominance, as you was the root of the original
problem, has to be addressed by policy and law, and if needed be broken.
This is the approach that economic law has traditionally taken. Where
would the information revolution be were it not for the competition
enforcing breakups of IBM (separating software from hardware) and of AT & T?
As for Microsoft's monopoly in OS space, I think the new networked era
monopolies like of Google and Facebook are much more pernicious. And we
are only at the start of the era when we would need to get any policy
about the digital space first cleared if not written by them. Only last
year Google co-wrote the Net neutrality law for the most powerful
government in the world.
The main problem today with the world which is being economically and
socially integrated is the absence of concomitant political
institutions. The struggle to get the right institutions, and then to
get them right, will be a long and difficult one. But we must start with
the right democratic principles, which inter alia makes a clear
difference between pubic and private interests, and prioritise the
interests and perspectives of the more marginalised over the most powerful.
parminder
>
> But the trouble also was, the spam solutions they were prepared to
> accept were also a waste of time...
>
> That's politics, and there are lots of examples of this sort of
> useless compromise to bring everyone on board in all areas of
> politics, both before and after and with or without multistakeholderism.
>
> My point is that pretending IETF is above politics is simply not true.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, parminder
> <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Date: *Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:29:32 +0530
> *To: *<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes
>
>
>
> On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
> Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF
> efforts, I
> can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve
> Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated
> IETF efforts.
> The result is evident.
>
> Nothing wrong with that -
>
> I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the
> despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non)
> standard recognised.) Private players should be denied any such
> political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for
> this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to
> explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose.
> However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society
> governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even
> normatively, what to speak of practice.
>
> And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of
> our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing
> business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally
> accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by
> global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike
> what is the case in the IG space.)
>
> Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a
> feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy
> movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by
> itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages.
>
> parminder
>
>
> but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely
> on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com>
> <mailto:karl at cavebear.com>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> , Karl Auerbach
> <karl at cavebear.com> <mailto:karl at cavebear.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes
>
> On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an
> d-why/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open.
> The best ideas
> win through vigorous debate and testing.
>
>
>
>
> As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I
> can attest
> that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has
> withered and
> left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic
> and say
> that they are not industrial strength.
>
> Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of
> technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade.
>
> One of the most overt instances of politics over technology
> occurred
> back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network
> management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant,
> but not
> deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but
> had some
> implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI.
>
> For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained
> as a sop
> to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI.
>
> More recently, but still in the network management path, the
> NETCONF
> protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a
> "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it
> is a dandy
> network "management" protocol.
>
> I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in
> RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by
> Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the
> higher layers
> of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and
> replace it
> with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I
> remember
> Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing
> down at
> me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of
> those RFCs
> that I "have destroyed DNS".)
>
> And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several
> competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly
> strong
> technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI
> connection-less network layer protocol with an address space
> much larger
> than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent
> checksum
> algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that
> technology,
> no matter how well conceived, is still anathema.
>
> For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is
> really a very
> strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of
> performance and
> security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it
> used a
> thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the
> juggling we see in mobile IP.
>
> We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of
> these
> relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a
> kind of
> robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU
> (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.)
>
> None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical
> merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by
> political
> forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate.
>
> Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a
> technical
> body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I
> think that
> many people who participated both before and after that date
> feel that
> that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative
> quality of the
> work being done.
>
> (It does not help either that the management of many tech
> companies
> measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet
> Drafts" and
> RFCs bear their names.)
>
> In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the
> IETF.
>
> The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in
> which
> goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned
> - and in
> which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable.
>
> In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is
> different -
> issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in
> complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by.
>
> (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think
> that the
> last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a
> week in
> North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's
> software.
> And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a
> proving
> ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter
> 1990's)
>
> --karl--
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120126/2b68b15a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list