Re: Internet 2020 Goals

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Fri, 30 May 2014 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C061A0671 for <>; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B79tB0q-8_DA for <>; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A01CA1A02AE for <>; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id bs8so290263wib.5 for <>; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=B04pFJ1KW73yjDp/O91pJAqa1+Gd2LdcIDpLYbW0uIo=; b=U/bbKAX3IGRWbiDBnadLCHFIaxamNNnnM+1Jwt6sc+GWouEQvRnZJowojXddCJoOum MkAcsSxrAh30EIvOUvzpDVIXVA4YsePiYxUb8HY6ShGEbnTgfjvR5sE24oofGAL2vqew h5Mbp/pfr0A6cLIEN9J/8rfz7/L9eXxGefenXnUil7Vw8u4q7VEqE2xeMTneJa4LHj+c PvDGfUcFq/sy2W/hbCFjKQy70d99CyLM7zg6IWdp3hmNP5YfN8pfU1wQ2Ti3XhT45RRm E7VAjBDIGhWWnCswhEmhQM1tp0XSJgftWXgVHFG0FjdEYqSCQqrjJVNOnTAHga0SS26o tl/Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id mz13mr1330309wic.32.1401411084146; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 20:51:23 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: iVS7ZaP3rP4WEbMFJ6qxP8hlbE8
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Internet 2020 Goals
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Joe Touch <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Carlos Martinez <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>, Alessandro Vesely <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 00:51:31 -0000

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Joe Touch <> wrote:

> I'm talking about whether the IETF/ISOC is a useful home for the discussion.
> I don't think it is, because for every 100 network researchers there are 101
> such documents "predicting the future", none of which have done much without
> associated money.

Well you completely missed the difference between a goal and a prediction:

A goal is an outcome that is desired.
A prediction is an outcome that is expected.

As I pointed out at the start, the money concern here is what to spend it on.

And I am asking the question of people who form the IETF what goals
they are interested in. That seems like the sort of exercise every
organization should carry out. And since the IETF does not have any
form of representative governance this is the obvious place to raise
that question.

Asking what IETF people what they would like to achieve is not the
same as asking them what they think the IETF should do. As you know
very well, when I don't think something is a fit for the IETF, I take
the work elsewhere. And if there isn't an organization that is a fit
we can start another one. Been there and done that four times now.

>> The problem I see at the moment is that the IETF has been very US
>> centric and the response to other governments suggesting they should
>> play a similar role to the US has been parochial at best.
> The IETF is an engineering organization, and does its best work when it
> focuses on that. Pontification is for people who wear funny hats ;-)

Twenty years ago your government asked me where they could best spend
money on Internet related research. Now there are non-US parties
asking me the same question. Trying to give them an answer is hardly

>> There is no shortage of research funds to 'make things happen'. That
>> being a superset of research funds available to US based researchers.
> There have been more than a few efforts in this area, and yes, it's a
> superset of the funds available from the US. Examples that jump to mind are:
>         Akari - Japan
>         4Ward - EU
>         FIRE - EU
>         FIBRE - Brazil/EU
> Do you think the funding agencies around the world are driven by documents
> issued by the ISOC? If so, then why do most of them end up writing their
> own? (hint: because they have the money).

Because they have more vision than ISOC does.