Re: [arch-d] Musings on Internet evolution

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 09 July 2020 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AF23A08A5 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 01:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ablVDphM2pmU for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 01:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73DF3A089B for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 01:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C416601DA; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:02:16 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xxWiJJWUFz33; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:02:15 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11799660166; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:02:15 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C2ACC9BE-41E4-4DF2-8D48-EFE501FC178D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <130601149.1026.1594226501049@appsuite-dev-gw1.open-xchange.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:02:14 +0300
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-Id: <1B50425D-6F59-42C9-A3AF-8A51FC769291@piuha.net>
References: <B007AF3D-5075-42C6-9153-44BD5220CD24@piuha.net> <130601149.1026.1594226501049@appsuite-dev-gw1.open-xchange.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/7rRtizXtT3Ez-fV9tlP9iudkeQQ>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Musings on Internet evolution
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 08:02:21 -0000

Vittorio,

> 1) centralization: in practice, much of the Internet is now decentralized technically but centralized economically and in terms of control into the hands of a few immense and unaccountable businesses; 

I certainly agree. As you say, this was not the focus of this article, but we do in fact mention consolidation in the challenges section. We and many others have written separately about the details of consolidation and centralisation. See for instance [1].

> 2) digital sovereignty: how can national governments restore some degree of non-negotiable control over the consequences that the Internet has on their societies, and fulfill their strategic need for the Internet to continue working even in the face of strained international relations.

That’s a very interesting topic, probably also worth more thought and writing.

Sovereignty is of course also complex, to start with because you on one hand want global reach and access to information, but you do want some local control. And when I say control, I don’t mean in the sense of controlling what the newspapers are allowed to write. Or that the one in charge should be the government. Rather, I mean for instance the ability to design your network as resilient, e.g., the ability to function when breakages occur elsewhere. Or the freedom to use local Internet infrastructure.

Jari

[1] Plugging in the recent ISOC-sponsored special issue of Journal of Cyber Policy here: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcyb20/current <https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcyb20/current>