About the Internet Society 

Board of Trustees

2005 Board Election

Candidates Forum

From David Isenberg

ANSWER TO QUESTION 1:

Comment 1:
As author of "Rise of the Stupid Network" I agree enthusiastically and whole-heartedly with Daniel Karrenberg's wise comment here http://tinyurl.com/cpb9b -- the Stupid Network, also known as "The End-to-End Principle," has been the major design success of the Internet. It is the duty of ISOC to preserve the End-to-End Principle by keeping the Internet Protocol as simple as possible (but no simpler). In other words, if something can be done in the middle of the Internet or equally well (or maybe even worse) at its edge, do it at the edge. The bias should always be in favor of intelligence at the edge.

The temptation to "improve" the Internet Protocol sometimes seems irresistible to those who would control communications for ideology and/or profit, so the ISOC must be visible and public about identifying which "improvements" to the Internet Protocol are necessary and which are not.

When proposed "improvements" are not necessary, or if they come only at a compromise to the architectural principles that caused the Internet's success, ISOC must resist them with all the tools at its disposal -- by continuing to foster the "Rough Consensus and Running Code" meritocracy that made the IETF great, by public education, by promulgation (and maybe even dissemination) of the latest, cheapest, best technology, regardless of how the new technology changes which companies benefit from the Internet's value, and by advocacy before the inevitable policy bodies engaged in Internet regulation efforts.

(Note: I think that ISOC should advocate before policy bodies, but I don't think that ISOC should *be* a policy body in any official sense -- it should remain the uncompromised voice of the nobody-owns-it, everybody-benefits-from-it Internet.)

Comment 2:
The Internet could be a tool for global cooperation, better markets and more humane organizations or it could be a tool of surveillance, exploitation and oppression. I'm in favor of the former, and strongly against the latter. Frankly, I am not sure **how** ISOC can foster the beneficial applications of the Internet and fight against the negative uses without distorting its core purpose, but if elected Trustee, I will be looking for ways. . .

Comment 3:
Better communications gives less developed nations access to better suppliers, better customers and better ideas. Too often developing nations are exploited by those who would sell traditional telco methods, gear and business models that yield too little functionality at too high a price. I suspect that education of key decision makers can, in many cases, make a huge difference. I'd like to see ISOC educational efforts focussed on bringing cost-effective and appropriate Internet infrastructure to those less developed nations where education (the most important form of which is person-to-person technology transfer) is likely to make an enduring difference.

Comment 4:
China. Hmm. In two years, China will have more broadband Internet connections than any other nation. It is implementing a nationwide IPv6-over-fiber Internet. ISOC should learn from China. ISOC should actively court Chinese netizens, should include Chinese participants at every possible level, should send learning delegations to China, and do everything possible to learn from and incorporate the Chinese Internet experiment into its own Internet concepts. If China resists ISOC overtures, should be prepared to start small, perhaps with the Internet equivalent of a ping-pong game. But we must start . . .

I am not sure how to deal with 'the Great Firewall" and other Chinese government actions that might not align with ISOC ideals, but these should not be stumbling points that thwart ISOC-Chinese relations. We must do this if we're to have one global Internet.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 2:

Standards: Go slow. Today's Internet works, it scales, it handles even the most complex applications. Make sure that proposed new functionality *must* be implemented at Layer 3 before putting it there. Be careful that new standards do not compromise the End-to-End Principle.

Education: Go fast. Those who would regulate the Internet might not know what they're proposing to regulate. Also the people of developing nations urgently need the technology. Also, the Internet is under attack from "walled garden" advocates. Education helps in all three cases.

Policy: Be deliberate. The ISOC should participate in policy efforts but should not become a policy-making body. If anything, ISOC should advocate under-regulation, deliberation, and doing the right thing (as opposed to "doing something") before the ITU, national communications authorities, etc.

Reaction to Glenn Ricart's comments on "Pillars" question

Re: http://www.isoc.org/members/vote/2005election/ricart.shtml#2

Glenn Ricart's " writes wisely of the three ISOC pillars, but I believe
that he under-emphasizes one thing. "Education" must be more
than information aimed at voluntary compliance. As part of its
education mission, ISOC should also be able to react rapidly and
aggressively to spin, mis- and dis-information generated by those who
are threatened by the Internet.

Trustee Candidate's Question 3

Strengthening the Global Internet Community should be the most important single task of ISOC.

All real change emanates from small groups of committed individuals.
In the past, ISOC main strength is that it has hosted such groups.
ISOC must preserve and strengthen this vital role.

The Internet's main social strength is community building via decentralized organization. ISOC should not be run as a top-down organizational structure. The best way to spread Internet principles, norms and values is from peer-to-peer.

The three most important issues for the Internet are (1) Internet freedom, (2) growing the Internet in lesser developed countries, especially Africa, and (3) partnering with and learning from Chinese Internet initiatives. However, if ISOC goes after these head-on, it runs the risk of attracting the attention of large, powerful enemies, with whom ISOC is not prepared to engage.

On the other hand, if ISOC builds a core community of Internet leaders motivated by Internet principles, these leaders certainly will serve on policy making bodies in their own countries, rise to leadership positions within their own companies, and influence international organizations from within. The likely result: Progress on all three issues -- and others of great importance -- with greater probability of success.

Trustee Candidate Veni Markovski said that ISOC will be part of the problem, part of the solution or part of the landscape. But being part of the landscape -- at least appearing to be part of the landscape -- is not such a bad thing. ISOC can be an Everest on the Internet landscape or a mighty river.

ISOC should be an inexorable force, not just another interest group.

(Note: this is why I said previously that ISOC should influence policy, but it should not seek to BE yet-another-policy-group.)

Trustee Candidate's Question #4

As somebody who has not been involved in the Internal workings of ISOC, I plead complete ignorance on the issue of ISOC chapter relationships.
I come with an open mind. I look forward to learning.

I strongly believe that ISOC should be a global organization. It should actively recruit members from developing nations. It should reach out to Internet architects in China, partner with them, learn from them.

Trustee Candidate's Question #5

Regarding intellectual Property issues -- the other IP -- indeed, the Internet changes everything. But this change will not come quickly or easily. For centuries, information has been inexorably tied to physical vessels. Business models, regulations and institutions to support them are firmly established. Now the Internet frees information from its vessels. But it will take decades, not years, to replace the institutions of the centuries with new ones.

There will be many battles to be fought as the transition proceeds.
These will be important battles, and it will be important to win as many as possible. The duty of ISOC is to the larger transition. The members of ISOC and their allies, motivated by Internet principles, norms and values, will find the best ways to engage the issues as they arise.

The larger duty of ISOC is to remain firm on one thing: Intellectual Property issues are application issues -- they must not change how the Internet Protocol works. That is, when those who claim ownership of Intellectual Property demand changes to the Internet Protocol and lower layers, these demands must be resisted. Unequivocally!

Trustee Candidate's Question #6

I don't think I could improve on what Candidate Glenn Rickart said here http://tinyurl.com/93scx in response to Question 6.

I especially agree with him when he
(a) emphasizes influence, education and ISOC member action in other national and international forums, (b) emphasizes light regulation, plus regional and national self-determination and (c) advocates setting forth appropriate and technically feasible roles for Internet governance.

Candidate Veni Markovski is, indeed, active in WSIS and other activities around Internet governance -- an excellent way for ISOC people to make ISOC's influence felt!

Internet governance will be on the table for decades. I believe it is ISOC's duty to represent the core of the Internet -- to be the voice of those architectural properties that made the Internet the success that it is today -- to all organizations that would propose to govern it.

Trustee Candidate Question #7

.org and the Public Interest Registry: I plead complete ignorance; among Internet folks, I hope that conscious ignorance is not seen as a defect. As a Trustee, I'll look forward to learning about how .org and PIR works, and approach issues with an open mind and respect for past work.