[Chapter-delegates] ISOC open letter
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Thu May 20 11:06:59 PDT 2021
...and yet they are possibly the only remaining barrier to stop
politicians from saying "the Internet is unregulated, we need to
regulate the Internet" and TBL from complacently accepting the Web
anniversary interchangeably with the Internet anniversary... since for
most people, the Web <-> Internet is the same thing...
One diagram explains it to a politician. Over the years, I have used it
on several ministers and suddenly you see that change in their facial
expression. Not that I'd imagine any politician to understand the OSI
layers functionality, but they understand that in a layer cake, when the
icing tastes too sweet, it's nothing to do with the base of the cake
itself. So deal with the icing, not the base. :-)
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/05/2021 19:54, Steve Crocker via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> When we were first thinking protocol architecture for the Arpanet,
> layers were building blocks. They were to be used if and when they
> were useful, but it was also envisioned people might skip layers,
> insert layers, etc., etc. I turned away from networking after a
> couple of years. When I turned my attention back to network some
> years later, I learned the OSI model had exactly seven layers. I
> nearly fell over laughing.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 1:50 PM Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates
> <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:58:04PM +0200, Richard Hill via
> Chapter-delegates wrote:
>
> >To me, the Link, Internet, and Transport layers are for sure
> infrastructure.
> >Some parts of the Application layer might be infrastructure, but
> much of it
> >is not.
>
> Suppose I invent an experimental transport that I'm using over the
> Internet to communicate with two friends. Is it infrastructure?
> Maybe sort of -- it's perhaps infrastructure for the three of us,
> but it's really just mystery garbage to everyone else. Now,
> suppose that I am Google and I invent an experimental protocol
> that I deploy to browsers that I give to everyone (but which is
> not yet standardized) and that lives in an application-layer
> protocol. Is it infrastructure? I'd say it's hard to claim that
> it is _not_ infrastructure, and so we're already in deep trouble
> with the layer model.
>
> Further,
>
> >No, there is not a bright line. Still I think that most people
> would agree
> >that, at least at present, e-commerce platforms, streaming
> services, and
> >social media are not infrastructure.
>
> I am unprepared to speculate what most people would agree to on
> this topic, but I'm rather less certain than you seem to be. I
> definitely disagree that some parts of social media are not
> infrastructure: the uniquity of "login via Facebook", "login via
> Google", and "login via Twitter" buttons show that _at least part_
> of some social media platforms are definitely infrastructure on
> the modern Internet: accounts in unrelated services are using
> OAUTH services that depend on features tied to a particular social
> media system identity. If that isn't infrastructure to you, then
> we're simply talking about different things.
>
> >broadcast evolve, but the basic concept is the same: to use some
> medium to
> >send the same content to a lot of people more-or-less at the same
> time
>
> But that is not, of course, the overwhelmingly dominant way that
> people use the Internet. Clubhouse aside, people are just not
> setting their alarm clocks to make sure they watch their favourite
> Internet show when it comes on. And they're not being tidy and
> careful about (in the case we're talking about) Candian content
> rules for who made the production and who were the performers and
> so on. The traditional solution that Canada had for this was to
> use broadcast licensing to force the Canadian content to be
> carried into Canadian homes even if Canadians often didn't want
> it. The Internet presents a challenge to that model, because the
> Internet doesn't impose a rigid distinction as to who is a
> "producer" and who a "consumer". C-10 (and a host of other
> similar proposals in other countries) appear to be an attempt to
> re-impose those kinds of distinctions, frequently with implicit or
> explicit expectations that the network provide the necessary
> facilities to enforce the regulatory prefe
> rence. To me, that is a threat to the Internet Way of
> Networking, and the Internet Society should oppose it.
>
> I am sad that I appear unable to convince you of this, but I
> suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> President & CEO, Internet Society
> sullivan at isoc.org <mailto:sullivan at isoc.org>
> +1 416 731 1261
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
> subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet
> Society Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> <https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login>
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20210520/33cdea15/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list