About the Internet Society 

Board of Trustees

2005 Board Election

Candidates

From Daniel Karrenberg

COMMENT 1:

To start this off:

Trend 1: The Internet has become a global utility and is destined to be a carrier replacing existing communications networks. The prime example is the telephone system but other applications such as streaming video are ramping up as well. This has rightly caused increasing attention by governments and telecomms regulators.

This affects coordination functions such as the DNS root and the distribution of Internet numbers. There is a danger that the effective coordination functions that we are used to become objects of political and diplomatic bargaining whithout regard to functionality; see the WSIS. There is also a tendency by governments to impose hierarchical structures upon Internet functions. Governors often fail to realise that the success of the Internet is grounded in and depending on the distributed way it is built and operated. Imposing hierarchical models will not work well.

The Internet society can play an important role in informing goernors how the Internet currently functions, such that they can make better informed decisions about what is in the public interest. ISOC has already started this; I expect that this activity will continue to be very important in the years to come.

COMMENT 2:

Trend 2: The Internet is designed to be dumb; it just provides a fabric for computers and other devices to communicate. Applications and content do not reside inside the network but in the computers at the edges. This design allows users to develop their own applications and deploy them based on the concept of cooperating hosts.

The dumb Internet has allowed tremendous innovation. Remember that things like the http protocol, and the WWW based on it, were developed much later than the original Internet architecture.

The model of cooperating hosts connected by a dumb network is endangered by several trends today: widely deployed host software is so insecure that malicious people can render computers unusable or use them for their own purposes. The current mail protocols and implementations allow for widespread abuse in the form of SPAM. Some governments consider unfiltered access by their citizens to the dumb network uncontrollable and therefore inappropriate. Some network operators strive to create added value and thus added profit for themselves by putting applications and content inside the network; they force users to make use of this by preventing unfiltered access to the Internet.

All this results in an increasing trend to create walled gardens that are not full parts of the global Internet. Often this is justfified by protecting customers or citizens from something such as SPAM or malicious attacks on their computers.

We have to realise that we will have no Internet left if this trend is allowed to continue unabated. Users will loose the ability to innovate and spread new applications quickly without the support or sanctioning of those controlling the netork infrastructure.

The Internet society should defend the Internet by pointing out this trend and pointing to the successes the dumb network of cooperating hosts has to its credit. It is worth saving.

Standards: Support for the IETF is an essential ISOC activity. Great progress has been made to start a new and improved secretariat which is expected to be well focused on the IETF's needs and to be responsive to the IAB and IESG.

However over the last few years I notice an increasing trend of former IETF participants ceasing to put their work before the IETF and endure the process to get a document to "Proposed Standard". I am not someone who wants the "good old days" back; I do realise the times have changed and the environment in which the IETF operates has changed a lot. However I sense a real danger in this trend: some of the people and organisations who are now turning away from the IETF have contributed much to the Internet community in the past. ISOC should help the IETF to focus on its strengths and to work structurally on its shortcomings. ISOC is in a unique position to do so, because it is broader than the technical community, it can muster an impressive amount of useful contributions by smart people and its relationship to the IETF is well established, neutral and essentially non-threatening to the IETF community.

ISOC can look at the bigger picture, encourage the IETF leadership to do the same and give advice without being tainted by particular interests or IETF internal politics. ISOC should consciously do this and help the IETF to keep being successful. Yet ISOC should very definitely not get directly involved with IETF processes over and above what is codified in RFC2850.

Public Policy: The Internet changes into a global infrastructure that touches all areas of societies and economies worldwide. The public interest represented by sovereign governments and other structures becomes more important. The role of ISOC in this area should not be to formulate or promote specific policies, but to explain to all actors how the Internet works and what factors are important to its continued success; what *kinds* of policies could be harmful and what kinds could be beneficial to make the Internet better and useful for more people. Doing just that will help ISOC shed the perception of being biased towards the interests of North America and Europe. ISOC should work hard to get Internetters from all over the world to become ISOC members and participate in this effort, both locally in chapters and worldwide. "Think globally, act locally."

Education: While I agree that ISOC education efforts have been extremely successful, I do *not* think ISOC should declare victory and concentrate its education efforts on policy makers and governments. My experience is that the Internet grows bottom-up and government actions have a very limited part in the spread of the net. Usually local pioneers and local Internet users make the Internet spread - often in the face of government opposition. ISOC Education activities, starting with Larry Landweber's networkshops, have not only spread knowledge and expertise. ISOC education effots have helped to start and maintain these vital local communities. ISOC should continue to help building local communities, networks of people! Focusing only on governments would be wrong.

Chapters/Values: Ideally chapters are a natural focal point for local Internet communities which are started by people sharing the same interests and ambitions, maybe even as a result of ISOC community building efforts. Ideally they all share the common values of ISOC at large and help ISOC o develop these values. Also ideally the ISOC board and staff provide the central support that chapters need, while acting on behalf of all members and chapters in the few areas where global action is needed.

The real world is far from ideal: Many interests, ambitions and, above all, many values differ across the planet. The support needs of various chapters vary widely. Interests, ambitions and values of individual chapters sometimes do not align with those of other parts of ISOC. Some people regard ISOC as biased in favor of particular interest and values, most often US and European.

The art of developing ISOC is to identify the common values and goals that are specific to the Internet and shared by the members sufficiently so that they feel part of ISOC. These values should be explicit and guide the membership, the chapters, the staff and the board whenever they act as part of ISOC. On the other hand it should be explicit on which subjects and values ISOC has *no* common position.

These thoughts may appear quite abstract and of little direct use in the day-to-day life of a membership organisation such as ISOC. However to me this does represent the essence of the challenges before any global association. I have no magic solutions to these challenges. However I will be guided by these principles when working for ISOC on the board. ISOC can only be useful to its members and the Internet when ISOC is recognized as a truly global organisations with shared values and when it is seen to act in accordance with these values everywhere. This is what I would call the most important goal for ISOC if I had to name a single one.

In this sense I also agree with David Isenberg's remarks about China: we should learn from each other, emphasize common values and not over-emphasize differences, especially when they are not directly related to the Internet. The "Great Firewall" should not prevent us from reaching out to Chinese people and organisations, quite to the contrary! And this does not only apply to China but to any part of the world where ISOC is regarded as biased or rejected for whatever reasons.

Being a team player I expect to work with the other board members to turn these principles into concrete actions. Talking about concrete actions in this forum and without the benefit of discussion with fellow board members would be premature. I believe my track record shows hat I can turn principles into actions and work with others to achieve ambitious goals.

So far my comments. Below are some random side notes:

Side note on languages: I noticed that some candidates included translations of their statements into other languages than "Internet English". I decided not to do that because I believe a global ISOC forum should have a common language. Personally I use three languages every day: German is my mother-tounge and the language we use in the family; I bet you can tell this from the length of my sentences even in "Internet English" :-). Dutch is the language of the country I live in; I use it to talk to other people in everyday life and to the tax inspector :-(. "Internet English" is the language I use professionally; I call it Internet English because it is a simplified version of English which lacks a lot of what makes a language: idioms, language jokes and ways of expression that make a mother tounge. This language is not rich, it is a lowest common denominator. But it gives me the ability to communicate to other Internetters globally. It is *not* the same language that people who regard English as their mother tounge speak; even they do *not* speak the same language if they come from different parts of the world! I just regard "Internet English" as a useful communication tool without any value judgment, I would never use it to write prose, poetry or a letter to a loved-one. I learned Latin, French and Russian at school too but I am far from proficient in any of these because I have had no chance to practice regularly.

Side note on ISOC governance: Get the best possible people to help with achieving the goals of ISOC. So far our track record has been good. No need to fix anything urgently. Encourage leaders from newer Internet regions to serve.

Side note on PIR and .org: ISOC should encourage PIR to do just one thing: run the finest registry providing the best service to .org registrants. Anything else is secondary, also when trying to win renewal.

Side note on Intellectual property: ISOC should stay out of these issues; there are enough potent organisations dealing with them. ISOC should point out that the Internet is just another means of communication, including communication of intellectual property. Should proposals emerge that touch the Internet itself, ISOC should evaluate them and point out any negative effects on the Internet.

If you have really read this far, please send me a message at <read-it-all@karrenberg.net>. If you care, let me know what you think and feel about my comments.