Clarification on recent comments as to ISOC being in charge of Internet

[[e-mail]]

PAP, 

Pleass see commnets below on some of your statements.  I have copied
Vint Cerf and a few others to "validate" or invalidate my
understanding of who runs the Internet

bob aiken
[e-mail]





>From:      SMTP%"[e-mail]" 26-OCT-1993 09:55:02.18
>To:  AIKEN
>CC:  
>Subj:      
>
>X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/; Relayed; 26 Oct 93
>17:47:22+0100
>Date: 26 Oct 93 17:47:22+0100
>From: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>Message-Id: <751654042.1655.0-faugeres.inria.fr*@MHS>
>
>
>Tony wrote:
>
>> >
>> >What is to be done (as a whole community) with terribly not conformant
>> >  software that want to connect to GO-MHS? Or more precisely, would it be
>> >  possible to have a common attitude with sites/domains using that type
>> >  of software and really *endangering* the whole GO-MHS?
>> >
>> >It concernrs PRMDs (eg. using today MS-MAIL gateways) but also some ADMDs
:-(
>> >
>> >As we have no direct control on what people buy and use, it is not an easy
>> >matter. What I suggest is to maintain and publish very widely a
>> >blacklist of products/providers which will give the name and version
>> >of the culprits along with a description of the problems.
>> >  - this would allow customers to check this list prior to buying choices?
>> >  - this would put a high pressure over the suppliers to fix the
>> >  problems as soon as possible.
>> >being unable to solve this type of problem is in my mind a serious X.400
>> >killer!
>> >
>> 
>>   Well this is a touchy subject. But how do you approach it with out
>> getting into any legal problems - my US legal paranoia showing.  I beleave
>> the GO-MHS coordination service is trying to avoid this problem by
>> testing new connection requests before they connect. But if the service
>> moves to a non-coordinated service (i.e. X.500, DNS) this would be 
>> harder to enforce. The Current SMTP world suffers from simular problems.
>>   
>>   At best we may be able to have a list of tested/recommended S/W. To
>> publish a negative list would invite problems. With ether list, who 
>> would publish it? And who would like to say they had tested and found the
>> software usable/unusable?  It would be nice if we did not go down the
>> the same path as SMTP but it is not clear how we can avoid it.
>> 
>> Tony...
>> 
>> 


>Well I am no expert at all in legal issues, however my view is the following
>
>I see two tracks for justifying such a black-list
>
>  . the internet society can be considered as a user association

  The ISOC is a professional society and is NOT a user association. 
  It does NOT run nor is responsible for running or operating networks.
  The IETF working groups are standards oriented groups and sometimes
  they stray into the grey area of dealing with quasi operational issues
  (such as the MHS with how to get X.400 service providers to interconnect)
  but at most that should be from the standards perspective - ie what stds
  (albeit some are defacto and/or bilateral agreements) are needed for 
  operation and interoperability to occur.


>  . who would prevent a user association to advise its members
>     againt running into trouble because they just inform each others
>     of the defects of products and services?
>

    Any entity in the US can be (and really stands the risk of) sued
    for establishing a black list of vendors products.  For one, these
    products have not been "evaluated" under fair and objective 
    conditions- ie. one that will stand up n court as being fair and
    independent.  Second, whether ISOC is a user association or not,
    being a user association still does not legally protect anyone who
    maintains a black list or even a "white List" - (actually lets 
    change these terms to "defective" and "non-defective" to get away 
    from cultural prejudices found in the terms white and black).  ONe
    way to habdle this is if a group of users exchange information amongst
    themselves that sort of goes like :  "  I tried product xyz and it works
    fine", or "I ran in to problem with product ABC getting it to route
    on ORGs",... 


>additionaly
>
>  . the same internet society is also responsible for the operation
>     of the whole internet

This is patently a false statement.  the ISOC is NOT!!!
responsible for the operation of the INternet!  There are many federal,
state, private sector ( I can see PSI inc. claiming that the ISOC
is repsonible for their networks and its operation- ah - smile), 
and mid-levels (an dlets not forget the international networks) who do 
NOT believe that the ISOC is responsible for the operation of their network. 
The Internet is a network of networks and no one network or association can
claim that it has responsibility for the operation or evolution of the whole
Internet.  The ISOC is a professional society who is interested in the
evolution of the INternet but does not run it nor is it responsible for its
operation.  The Internet standards are handled in the IETF.  The ISOC does not
actually set standards either- yet tries to provide a forum for the evolution
of the Internet standards and a home for its process.  If anyone from the ISOC
(or for that matter the IAB or any of my fellow global grid"iron" colleagues)
wishes to correct me, and/or claim that the ISOC is responible for all 
Internet protocols/standards/opertaions I look forward to your e-mail.

bob aiken


>  . as said by Stef, is there any law preventing an operator to
>     avoid a network service falldown by advising against
>     offending products?
>
>
>Conversely it seems to me more touchy to publish a list of recommended
>products, because we don't have to infere in the people choices
>as long as there is no negative impact on the whole network.
>

 I agree that ANY list could possible put in your harms way (of legal
  folken that is).  See comment above that an informal exchange of 
  information on specific topics may be the way to go.


>
>cheers
>
>-- PAP

ciao

bob aiken
[e-mail]

disclaimer - this is a bob aiken flame - hold no others accountable.