Re: Internet 2020 Goals

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 5/29/2014 5:00 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/28/2014 1:32 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting reading, but it doesn't really address the original post's
>>> idea.
>>>
>>> Setting some goals and a general vision is not prognostication. It's
>>> thinking about how you want things to be, rather than trying to guess
>>> what they'll be like.
>>>
>>> You might never get there, and  that's ok. But it helps upholding values
>>> and principles, and guides new work.
>>>
>>> It's a bit like writing science fiction.
>>>
>>> I, for one, would propose leaving past grievances in the past and to
>>> look towards the future.
>>
>>
>> My point still remains; the future lies with those who invent it, not with
>> those who want merely to talk about it.
>
> I think I have invented enough of the present to talk about the future.

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.

> 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 ;-)

>> Absent research funds to make things happen, having the IETF - or ISOC -
>> host such an exercise serves no useful purpose other than to occupy the time
>> of the participants.
>
> The US government has a tendency to plead poverty when it comes to
> research funds. What funds that are available are often tied to
> military goals.

Given the fact that we're having this conversation using the "Department 
of Defense" protocol suite (the original name of the Internet 
protocols), on a network that was originally called (D)ARPANET, I don't 
see why this is a problem.

> Turkey is currently in an economic boom.

Which explains the title of this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/28/business/turkey-economy-election/

> Brazil has dumped $10 billion
> on hosting the world cup and is looking to spend twice that on the
> Olympics.

Which explains this as well:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/hope-fades-in-brazil-for-a-world-cup-economic-boost-1401242039

 > Both governments intend to spend on networking research to
> boost their countries to become the regional technology centers.

That'd certainly be nice, if it happens.

> 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).

Joe