Re: [arch-d] Splintering (fragmentation) vs Centralization vs Users

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

How about:

The Internet Architecture itself with unlimited, federated connectivity is
the main reason for creating global markets and consolidation not seen before.
Asking to have protocols that maintain the Internet Architecture but counter
consolidation is a contradiction in term.

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:20:48AM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> 
> Or, perhaps the IAB might want to consider whether or not economic organization is within the scope of the Internet architecture.
> 
> Trying to control the economic forces of the entire planet through a series of RFCs seems quixotic, to say the least.
> 
> Consolidation is part of the natural evolution of any market. Anti-trust legislation has been necessary to ensure consumer protection, as no other mechanisms have ever sufficed. Expecting that we can do better would seem like an act of hubris.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> 
> > On May 5, 2023, at 9:47 AM, Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Brian asks: "Is there scope for IAB guidance to the IETF about what aspects of protocols, especially security protocols, might encourage or discourage either centralization or splintering?" I think there is, or more likely, that the IAB (and the IETF) have better find something.
> > 
> > Because the alternative position is, "Yeah, we design protocols that can just as well enable decentralization or foster monopolization, be good for society or be atrocious. Whether they do one or the other is someone else's problem." And that sounds very much like "Our job is to put the rockets up. Where they fall, that's another department."
> > 
> > -- Christian Huitema
> > 
> > On 5/4/2023 11:14 PM, Arnaud Taddei wrote:
> >> Good write up Brian which reminds me 2 things + 1 addition
> >> 1) DINRG had a similar discussion in IETF 116 on the theme "does a new technolog drive those tendendencies?” (This was about centralisation)
> >> 2) We looked at IMAP for example and I reminded a discussion I had perhaps 25 years ago with Bill Yeager and he had a really good metaphor (and that was prior to “social networks” era), which then led me to another such discussion with Mark Crispin (rip)
> >> The addition is that my brain is missing security in the picture as a "superposition state” (and I use Quantum Physics on purpose … not just in memory of our joint past at CERN!) in particular recognising the intrication of privacy and security.
> >> Now I thought initially ‘because defence is creating its own twist here’ but then I realized that to a certain degree this is as well because each of the 3 constituencies of your picture are not just defenders, they are attackers too in multiple forms.
> >> I am not sure (this early morning) if this is a primary level issue or if it is a secondary level issue in your proposal.
> >> Hope this helps a little bit
> >>> On 4 May 2023, at 23:39, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> After a little off-list discussion, I have a few more general thoughts
> >>> on this topic. (I won't identify the other person in that discussion,
> >>> to respect their privacy.)
> >>> 
> >>> I mentioned that some security technology that we develop could be
> >>> "dual use", e.g. useful both for privacy and useful for walled gardens.
> >>> So perhaps we should be careful when evaluating new ideas that they
> >>> cannot be used for undesirable purposes as well as the intended purpose.
> >>> If we consider that both excessive centralization and excessive
> >>> splintering (a.k.a. fragmentation) are bad things, does a new technology
> >>> drive those tendendencies? Could we design it differently to avoid
> >>> this?
> >>> 
> >>> Is there scope for IAB guidance to the IETF about what aspects of
> >>> protocols, especially security protocols, might encourage or discourage
> >>> either centralization or splintering?
> >>> 
> >>> That could be a productive use of the IAB's resources where we might
> >>> have some impact. Discussion of wider societal, commercial and
> >>> political issues in the IAB and IETF would get nowhere, and in my
> >>> opinion is best left to ISOC.
> >>> 
> >>> There's very clearly a 3-way tussle, and that makes all discussion
> >>> difficult, especially since each national government has different
> >>> goals. ASCII art:
> >>> 
> >>>                Users
> >>>           (freedom of action,
> >>>                privacy)
> >>>                /    \
> >>>               /      \
> >>>              /        \
> >>>      National          Global
> >>>   governments -------- businesses
> >>>   (defend or          (capture &
> >>>    control             exploit
> >>>    citizens &          customers)
> >>>    economy)
> >>> 
> >>> Regards
> >>>   Brian Carpenter
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1683841175000000&usg=AOvVaw3DIB56mqn7ZU0a53yuDvJE
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss