Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] SSAC Report on the IANA Functions contract

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 22:13 19/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Either way, though, the notion that voluntary standards bodies are 
>> the authoritative parties vis-a-vis the Internet should carry over 
>> into a post-NTIA world.
>
> Dear Miles,
>
> I understand and agree with your analysis (and I can innovatively 
> explain it with scientific rigor), BUT that is provided the IETF 
> technology is the only acceptable/possible digital network technology, 
> and the way it is managed is agreed by everyone.

Appreciate the concurrence, but beg to differ that we're talking about 
technology here.  The topic is on the table is governance, specifically 
governance of protocols and numbering for a specific infrastructure, the 
Internet.

By analogy - IEEE is the accepted standards body and registrar for all 
things related to Ethernet - including, not only protocols, but things 
like UUIDs.  For the Internet, IETF is essentially playing the same role 
- with some aspects (names, numbers) being done by several other bodies.


>
> We know that this is not the case. Three points extensively documented 
> by experience, analysis, books, documents of reference, etc. show it:
>
> - the NTIA oversight is only an avatar of the 1977 initiated variation 
> of the USG regulation of a universal service - that is still 
> subsidized. The NTIA transition is only an adaptation of this 
> regulation 40 years later on, taking into consideration the change of 
> scale in use and locality.

Wow, is that not the case.  Internet governance - by NTIA and others is 
incredibly far from the regimes imposed on telecom. carriers by the FCC 
and state Public Utility Commissions - stemming from a legislative 
tradition dating back to the 1910 Mann-Elkins Act (wrote a book chapter 
on the evolution of US telecom regulation at one point).  The 
machinations that the Internet community went through to avoid any such 
regulation were pretty intense, back in the day. Arguably, we (in the US 
at least) would be better off in terms of things like "network 
neutrality" if Internet access networks were subject to common carrier 
regulation.

>
> - the internet architecture is blocked since 1983. This is the 
> "status-quo" US strategy: IETF has never scaled above the first IEN 48 
> motivation (a global TCP/IP catenet) and engaged in the second 
> motivation (a TCP/IP Tymnet). It planned it, it did not do it, but the 
> world is engaged in the process. This makes innovation an uncertain 
> parameter. Lower layers may very well stay stable (probably not the 
> way you see it, because there is no real "voluntary" SDO at these 
> layers anymore, but along RFC 6852). The architecture is opening 
> through the economically based technical competition among "global 
> communities". Plural. This means that the "technical market power" 
> (capacity to impose its standards by market influence) of DARPA, NSA, 
> USCC is progressively affected by what can be called an "intelligent 
> use by economic necessity".

Of course one might argue that the Internet is precisely scoped as an 
operational TCP/IP catenet - with a highly evolved governance 
mechanism.  And that is the scope of the governance issues on the 
table.  And, compared to other telecom regulatory environments (e.g., 
the telephone network), far more open to evolution and innovation - 
that's something that's working pretty well - no need to break it.

Cheers,

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra