Subject: Re: Internet Companies Welcome Idea of Global Charter (fwd)

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 18:54:43 -0800

Well, I advise everyone to remember tha the Intrnet is actually like
an economy.  

And I note that after many decades of war and many milions of
casualties, the world population and almost all goverments,
corporations and other institutions have learned that owning and
centrally controlling an economy is not a good diea.  

All governements that have attempted central control (e.g.,
"ownership") of an economy seem to now wish they did not;-)...

I suggest that GIP members should all think very carefully before they
assert any kind of control over the Internet.

I also would suggest that MCI and Netscape have not yet shown that
they really understand the Internet all that well;-)...

So, what I see here is a contiuaqtion of the great question of 

	"Who is going to be king of the Global Hill?"

My response is:  	"Who said we need one?

In other words, who died an letf the GIP to be King?

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 09:03:41 -0500

Stef,

GIP isn't trying to be King at all. It's just a group
of companies with a lot of interest in the healthy growth
of the Internet and they have opinions about policy, like
everyone else.

There is no cabal here.

vint

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:27:47 -0800

Hi Vint -- I meant my "King..." comment in a more general sense;-)...

What I see are two divergent camps:  

	One that favors some kind of central controlling authority;
	And one that favors a form of self organized bounded chaos
            or complexity.

I draw a comparison of the Internet to the Global Economy, and note
that though there are some broad agreements about International trade
and some regularion of aspects of the economy, there is no central
authority that controls it.

I favor the self organizing aspects of the global economy model over
the notion that the Internet requires some central autority to be in
control.

In short, I do not believe any King of the Internet is a good King.
No King is much better.  

If the GIP is a self organizing kind of effort, like a trade
association that speaks only for its own members, and tries to
consider that others also have important interests, and if they are
open to public discussions of the issues, then I have no problem with
them.  But, I keep seeing overtones of closed discussions and
avoidance of public challenges and questions in too many aspects of
the current DNS wars, and related Internet Governance issues.  I see
many hidden agendas and lots of private manipulation.

In one view, this is just the process of self organizaton politics at
work in standard human behavior modes, so I find it acceptable, but I
also like to see open public debate of the issues;-)...

Frankly, I very much like the IETF model which required open public
discussion of issues in order to make progress.  And, when I see the
IETF/IAB/ISOC structre drift off into closed meetings and see them use
obfuscation and "we have better information then you do" as answers to
questions and challenges, then I become very suspicious about the
motives and the games that are being played.

It is the opportunity for anyone to ask any question and expect a
reasonable answer from the community that guards against power grabs
and such.  The Internet has a fine tradition for openly dealing with
these things in the past, with an occasional lapse into closed
backroom decisions which has often been called out and corrected by
community members asking hard questions in public.  I am just
continuing this fine old traditon.

I strongly suspect that many people agree with my tendancies to
distrust much of what has recently been passed off as "open
discussion".  What I am detecting is more and more backroom
maneuvering and manipulation.  Clearly there is a lot of jockeying for
position going on here;-)...  And clearly, there is a lot at stake on
all sides.  I find it hard to believe there there is no cabal here.

Thanks for the chance to further explain my position;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Mon, 03 Nov 1997 09:03:41 -0500:
}
}Stef,
}
}GIP isn't trying to be King at all. It's just a group
}of companies with a lot of interest in the healthy growth
}of the Internet and they have opinions about policy, like
}everyone else.
}
}There is no cabal here.
}
}vint
}
}At 06:54 PM 11/2/97 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}>Well, I advise everyone to remember tha the Internet is actually like
}>an economy.  
}>
}>And I note that after many decades of war and many millions of
}>casualties, the world population and almost all goverments,
}>corporations and other institutions have learned that owning and
}>centrally controlling an economy is not a good diea.  
}>
}>All governements that have attempted central control (e.g.,
}>"ownership") of an economy seem to now wish they did not;-)...
}>
}>I suggest that GIP members should all think very carefully before they
}>assert any kind of control over the Internet.
}>
}>I also would suggest that MCI and Netscape have not yet shown that
}>they really understand the Internet all that well;-)...
}>
}>So, what I see here is a continuation of the great question of 
}>
}>	"Who is going to be king of the Global Hill?"
}>
}>My response is:  	"Who said we need one?
}>
}>In other words, who died an left the GIP to be King?
}>
}>Cheers...\Stef

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 05:58:03 -0500

Stef,
GIP publishes everything it does - that's its purpose,
to gather views of the members and make them widely known.

They are strongly in favor of competition and not in
central controlling authorities. 

You seem to want to put them in the "control camp" and, frankly,
they don't fit there.

v

---

From: Chris Rapier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:12:48 -0500 (EST)

The problem is that once corporations take control of protocol formation
the last thing you are going to see is innovation. This might not have
been true 5 years ago, but enough large companies have enough invested in
the internet to push their decision makers toward the conservative end of
the spectrum. So, while we may have an increased level of stability in the
protocols, I think you'll find less "new" and "exciting" things actually
getting out of the door. Instead you'll end up with 56 byte ATM cells and
compromise solutions that no one wants to use.

The nature of the net was such that one man with a good idea and a certain
amount of chutzpah could make a significant impact on the way things are
done. Its been getting more and more difficult for that to happen, but
something like GIP will most assuredly destroy this possibility. 

> of the Internet and they have opinions about policy, like
(shades of grubor!)

---

From: Chris Rapier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:29:58 -0500 (EST)

> getting out of the door. Instead you'll end up with 56 byte ATM cells and

Make that 53 byte atm cells.