Re: [arch-d] IAB Technical Discussion on Fragmentation: 2023-05-03

[Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>]

Akash Kapur had an Essay that was published by  Wall Street Journal
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rising-threat-of-digital-nationalism-11572620577>
in
Nov 2019. The title of the essay is "*The Rising Threat of Digital
Nationalism".* This essay said:
"Nicholas Negroponte, a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab, once said that
national law had no place in cyberlaw. That view seems increasingly
anachronistic. Across the world, nation-states have been responding to a
series of crises on the internet (some real, some overstated) by asserting
their authority and claiming various forms of digital sovereignty. A
network that once seemed to effortlessly defy regulation is being
relentlessly, and often ruthlessly, domesticated."

Hesham




On Fri, May 5, 2023, 4:10 PM Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 2, 2023, 3:38 AM Vittorio Bertola
> <vittorio.bertola=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Il 28/04/2023 23:54 CEST Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I also had the same initial thought. And I've even got an RFC discussing
> pseudowire fragmentation, so I was looking forward to an IP fragmentation
> discussion!
> >
> > I guess this is part of the current, extensive effort by the I*
> organisations (mostly ISOC and ICANN) to counter any renewed proposals for
> a different governance structure for the key technical resources of the
> Internet, i.e. names and numbers (did anyone say ITU?).
> >
> > However, there is some ambiguity on whether this also extends to
> regulation at the application layer, like the recent efforts in Europe to
> establish rules that would force the global Internet industry to tailor
> their services to specific European norms (this may go as far, to give you
> an example of a current discussion, to require AI models to be able to
> forget all information they learned about a specific European citizen,
> which of course is not technically easy; but it also includes
> pro-competition measures against walled gardens, requirements for large
> online information platforms, and, more controversially, proposals to
> mandate the screening of personal messages for CSAM).
> >
> > I am curious to see how the IAB defines "fragmentation" - this is an
> ongoing discussion at the already mentioned IGF PNIF - and thus what is the
> scope of this "technical discussion". Personally, I would encourage the IAB
> to stay out of the latter set of problems, as there is almost nothing
> technical in them - it's all about policy, values, interests and
> compromises.
>
> I seem to remember two WGs facing hostility due to policy and values
> issues: ohai and privacypass, and then the W3C has had its own issues
> with the Privacy Sandbox. So I don't think we can ignore these
> supratechnical issues entirely if participants are saying we should or
> shouldn't charter based on them. Also, ODoH, etc.
>
> This isn't new: we saw these sorts of issues in the 1990's with
> encryption, the 2010's post Snowden where the choices of what to
> standardize had a political valence.  Putting our head in the sand
> when participants are discussing these issues and bringing them up as
> reasons to standardize or not strikes me as counterproductive. It's
> also worth remembering that there is no protocol police: you can
> deploy any application to do anything on the net, and provided it
> doesn't cause problems for the rest of the network, or really problems
> for anyone who sits between you and the other users, it works. As a
> result standardization isn't really able to do anything more than say
> "no, that's a bad idea", but isn't able to actually stop it.
>
> The fact that the Internet is permissionless and implementation
> precedes standardization is good: it creates a dynamic environment
> that has tremendously benefited everyone involved, and has prevented
> rent-seekers who would like to stop investing and innovating and
> instead charge tolls.  That wasn't just a policy choice, but a result
> of technical decisions that enabled a decentralized network with
> distributed namespaces, as well as norms around interconnection, and I
> think that's more than just ISOC. And it also means that what the
> future of the Internet is is not controlled by the IETF but rather
> shaped by commercial forces and responses to emerging
> needs+technologies.
>
> Sincerely,
> Watson
>
> >
> > Ciao,
> >
> > --
> >
> > Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
> > [e-mail]
> > Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>