[Chapter-delegates] The Future Internet

Thu May 14 00:33:43 PDT 2009

(warning - this is long)

"Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 2009, at 5:00 AM, artur wrote:
>
>> I strongly recommend the ISOC discussion document Preserving the  User
>> Centric Internet,
>> http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/usercentric_en_2008.pdf
>
> Note that the ITU is interested in anything but user-centrcism. They  are
> an inter-governmental agency operating under the auspices of the  UN, and
> are dominated by the telecoms. They are about building  businesses for
> their members.

I completely agree with your point. In fact, judging from the replies we've
had in this thread, it looks like everyone's in agreement - which is
heartwarming. IMHO it is up to the current user-centric organisations
to defend this model. Should they rally together for the cause?

I also read through Sivasubramanian's blog post on
http://isocmadras.blogspot.com, which links to a talk by Kevin Kelly on the
"next 5000 days of the Web". Fascinating video indeed!
Alas, I am not as optimistic as Kevin Kelly is. His talk is fantastic but I
I'll venture to qualify it as utopist because it looks only at the positive
possibilities for the next 5000 days. His scenario is all well if
everybody was nice and looking forward to doing good for the future of
humanity. Alas, not everyone out there is as much of a Don Quixote as
we are.

There are threats to the Internet model - and these threats are real.
I tend to define those as "The Three Dangers", in order of increasing
importance: Technological, Economical, and Political.

1. Technological Danger

Kelly believes in a convergence between the real world and the e-world. He
is absolutely right. However, he also mentions that this future symbiosis
will bring a more personalised Web - and this will *require* more
transparency on our behalf.
Call me old school, but I think that we, as human beings, open ourselves to
future unknown threats if we allow the convergence to become too
personalised, to the point of our innermost private lives being known to
the Net. Let's focus on identity, for example.
We, as humans, have a resilient number of ways to identify ourselves
(fingerprints, iris, dental records, DNA) whilst there is no equivalent
online.
Our own identity protection can therefore not be matched online and a
complete convergence between our "e-self" and the real world would
therefore need to be seriously improved security-wise to (a) avoid identity
theft and (b) enable protection of our own self, bearing in mind that what
is most precious in one's life is "freedom of thought". Information
exchange is two-way and is therefore a double edged knife.

We are currently pioneering technology which allows us to have a permanent
Web presence, through social networking sites, Twitter, Second Life, etc.
This is only but a fraction of what will be achieved technologically in the
future. Do it wrong, and we could be anhiliated. How? As the importance of
the Internet increases in our everyday lives, we are more liable to what
happens there. Today our physical identity is more important than our
virtual identity, but there are signs that in some cases, virtual identity
is taking precedence.
When that identity is hijacked, our real life get hijacked as well.
Today, it is too easy to hijack an online presence or identity.
I could create LinkedIn & Facebook Identities pretending to be the
Pope. Who would know if this really is him or not?

Furthermore, as we rely more and more on technology, any failure
of such technology is likely to plunge the world in chaos which will dwarf
the current economic problems. So we really need to be *very* careful about
embracing this convergence, and we need to make sure it is done right.
I recommend that everybody read the Forum of Risks to the Public
in the Use of Computers & Related Systems, where examples of
technology gone wrong abound.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/risks

2. Economical Danger

The Internet model is re-defining rules of business for many established
firms. For example, the current Intellectual Property model is suffering
greatly because the speed of change has been too quick for the business
model of these firms to adapt. This is of particular concern in the Music
and Motion Picture industries.
The Internet comunication billing model is also being strained. Technology
has opened the door to potential abuse. The flipside of this coin is that
industry & businesses are now fighting back - and some of this comes in the
form of lobbying of politicians in order to introduce stringent laws, some
of it in the form of new traffic constraints thus bringing an end to the
"end to end principle", some of it in the form of support for a "Next
Generation Network" where control of the network and traffic is part of the
network's architecture, and billing is one of its central features.

If all corporations were run in a fair and ethical way, we would probably
not need to be too concerned. After all, a fair Internet built on the
premise that profits are shared and innovation is promoted is something
ing which we should all support. But this is not business.
Alas, history has shown us that corporations are able to embrace the most
corrupt of ways, thus leading to a complete lack of ethics as soon as big
money and personal greed is involved.
Consolidation gives rise to budding monopolies and the lack of competition
brings forth excessive billing practices from faceless conglomerates manned
by employees who are "part of the system". If this wasn't the case, why
would we need government-sponsored industry watchdogs?

Sadly, we're again at a turning point with many examples of business gone
wrong. We should *not* take the Internet model for granted.
We, as the end user, need to fight for this model to remain and to support
fair competition. We need to make it known that none of the current
services that make the Internet what it is today would have existed, had the
Internet business model not been what it is: a user-controlled,
end-to-end principle Internet. The attraction of the Internet itself is not
the Telecom aspect of it; rather it is the diversity of spontaneous services
available on it, a testimony to human innovation, and this human innovation
is what individuals like you and I thought about one morning, and put to
execution. Never, in the history of the world and in times of relative
peace, had so much innovation ever arisen as quickly as it did on the
Internet. If we want the next 5000 days to be as innovative as the past 5000
days, we, as people, need to make sure that the Internet model is kept as
much as possible - and that includes a user-centric internet.
Losing this model altogether will do more harm to the world's economics than
the financial & economic woes we are currently experiencing.
Yes, we could lose it.

3. Political Danger

I often tell people around me that in 1909 nobody probably imagined
that barely a few years later humanity would have to tackle
World War I, then 20 years later a serious recession, and 30 years
later, a despot named Hitler.

We're now in 2009.
What will the world be like in 2014? In 2029, or in 2039?
Are we likely to see the emergence of another Hitler requiring
millions and millions of deaths to re-establish world freedom?
We simply do not know.

Opening the door to governmental control of information is opening the
door to a potential Hitler in 2039. The increased reliance on the Internet
for news, information and communication, opens the door for abuse.
Complete control by governments is therefore highly dangerous.
Ref: Big Brother. This is no joke.

We therefore need to make sure that the Internet remains user-centric,
because it is the only way that the world's collective wisdom will prevail
and stop another Hitler from emerging. Need I say more on this subject?

That said, it would be utopic to imagine an Internet "by the people,
for the people". Let's get real: we live in a mostly capitalist world. So
multi-stakeholderism is the answer. The beauty about multi-stakeholder
systems is that each stakeholder group often counterbalances the excesses
of the other groups. Let's be fair: users can also be selfish, wanting to
have free access to any information, and to pump a flood of information
in and out of their Internet line, whilst paying a rock bottom fee.
The next 5000 days will only be as good, if not better than the past
5000 days if we keep the multi-stakeholder governance model alive.

Sorry for this long message, but I wanted to give as complete an answer as I
could. Dreams of a beautiful future for the Internet are beautiful dreams.
Alas, we're embarking on a much rockier road indeed. As ambassadors to your
local chapters and communities, go out there and spread the word!
Being aware of a challenge makes you more prepared, because failing to
prepare is to prepare for Failure.

Alas, Failure is not an option.

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html