IP: Has the IETF outlived its Usefulness?

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 13:46:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gordon Cook <cook () netaxs com>
To: ietf () ietf org


In comments today on the Internet Law & Policy Forum mail list today
(actually on Thursday 7/11/96) Tony Rutkowski seems to be saying that the
IETF has outlived its usefulness.  I include these comments within this
post.  I would appreciate list members reaction to them.


First let me quickly set the context.  There is a pretty interesting power
struggle going on....one with possibly significant implications for the
survival of the IETF in its present form.  


The Internet Law and Policy Forum is
initiating a global proceding to fashion a plan to implement new top level
domain name registries.  This is being discussed partly on the iltf
news () eclips osc edu list and partly on the newdom () iiia org list.  The ILPF
is promoting its ability to solve this problem for the Internet community
in opposition to John Postel's RFC that would set up new TLD services
under the ISOC.


Now the ILPF has some interestingweb pages at
http://www.discovery.org/iltf.html


If list readers haven't visited this site I urge them to.


Basically ILPF is an organization of the lawyers of the large corporations
who are setting themselves up as an internet governing body with "working
groups" modeled on the IETF and as ones who are there to help us all by
developing the "working legal code for the internet."  The way they choose
to do this is pretty interesting.  Here is an exchange of comments from
the iltf-news () eclips osc edu list today.  My concern with what is going on
is that I believe that the ILPF folk (who are so far refusing to divulge
the list of attendees at their innaugural meeting at Netscape headquarters
this January) are mis-representing their process as the functional
equivalent of the IETF process.


I am reluctant to raise issues on this list because I am only a journalist
and not a working member of the IETF.  In discussing my concerns with a
senior member of the IETF I asked whether he thought it appropriate to
share this material with you.  He answered yes.  So here it is.


Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:33:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gordon Cook <cook () netaxs com>
To: Tony Rutkowski <amr () chaos com>
Cc: James Love <love () tap org>, pfh () netscape com, iltf-news () osc edu
Subject: Re: ILPF
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:34:41 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: iltf-news () osc edu


Well Tony I realize that the following is a draft, but let me say that
whoever wrote it really needs to understand a lot better what the IETF and
the internet is all about.  When people come up with an idea for a
standard, the whole process is public.  Microsoft certainly can't go to
the IETF and say shhhhh we'd like you to develop XYZ and we will PAY you
to do so, only you must agree to keep the fact that we are paying for this
from ever becoming public knowledge.


If the ILPF wishes to dress itself in IETF clothing, it needs to become a
LOT more candid with the internet community.  Having said this let me say
that I recognize that there are legitimate legal issues like CDA where a
completely open ILPF, NOT controlled by multi-billion dollar corporations,
could play a valuable role.  I hope that jeff ritter, peter harter et all
will succeed in this aim.  BUT the idea that 30 to 45 companies may BUY
their seats on the ILPF is NOT how the IETF works.  IETF Area Directors
win their stripes by successful years of work within the OPEN proceedings
of the IETF.  The very people who design and build the internet promote
them - they don't BUY a seat at the table.


Again ILPF needs to be more open about its direction and membership.
Peter Harter needs to start by posting the attendance list for the January
96 meeting at netscape headquarters.


Peter?




==============Here is the draft text from the ilpf web page=======
Internet Law & Policy Forum


                                  Internet Law Forum
                                   Executive Summary


                           (Working Draft For Discussion Purposes Only)
<big snip>


Working Group projects may be proposed by the Forum itself or by
"customers," which may include
businesses, government agencies, trade associations or international
organizations. Each Working Group will
be funded by the sponsor(s) of the proposal unless otherwise paid for by
the Forum itself (which may be
appropriate in the case of issues brought forward by certain non-profit or
unfunded groups). However, the
source of funding and the proposer(s) of the project will be confidential
in order to ensure the integrity of the final product.


TONY RUTKOWSKI then replied


> Gordon,
>
> Although your concern is appreciated, some of this is getting
> petty.
>
> > whoever wrote it really needs to understand a lot better what the IETF
and
> > the internet is all about.  When people come up with an idea for a
> > standard, the whole process is public.
>
> I can't recall seeing you at any standards meetings lately, but
> the environment is really much more complex than you portray, and
> involves significant industry tradeoffs and business decisions.
> Even in the IETF, the most important ideas and specs usually
> came from a handful of people at a beer BOF who really knew
> what they were doing, and the rest was window dressing.


> However, the environment is rapidly changing.
> In fact, most of the more important standards activities are
> shifting to a wide variety of specialized consortia of various
> flavors.  The WWW Consortium is a prominent example, and many of
> the most exciting developments occurring in the arena are those
> of individual corporate or collective business initiatives.
>
> cheers,
>
> --Tony


And GORDON COOK RESPONDED


Gosh Tony, I certainly hope to attend an IETF meeting in person before too
long.  Consider my questions petty if you will.  I consider that they go
to the very heart of the process of how the IETF operates.


Sure, a suggestion may come from a smoke filled BOF, but to move down the
official IETF standards process track, that suggestion then has to be
handled in a VERY PUBLIC way and by the time the process is over you will
know very well who is advocates and detractors are.


I have asked a couple of prominent IETF people and will be asking more to
react to the entire draft material that I quoted from.  i am doing this
precisely BECAUSE I have never been a DIRECT participant in the IETF
process.  lets call it a **reality** check on my part.  I am getting back
responses that say my concerns are very well founded.  so it looks like
we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


BTW I take the rest of your response as a suggestion that the IETF is
becoming irrelevant anyway.  Am i wrong?


GORDON COOK:  And just a few minutes ago as though in answer to my
question Tony added this:


Rutkowski:  I think this discussion may have helped in sorting out some of
these different perspectives regarding what the organization
should be - or not be.


It's not clear what would constitute "a greater need," but one quickly
gets away from real contemporary business-driven problems into a realm
of subjective and cultural values, rather than real law.  It probably
also underscores why a "ILTF" as a kind of mapping of the IETF into the
legal domain would not work.  Indeed, frankly, a lot of companies are
voting with their feet in creating consortia because even in the
technical realm, the IETF process is not very effective today.


Frankly, the assumption that all the right people around the world who
are substantively knowledgeable on some topic can spend all their time
participating in email discussion groups is broken.  I've got full-time
connectivity and actively function in this medium, and it is becoming
really onerous.


Of course, doing everything is some closed meetings attended by select
individuals is not the way to proceed either.  These are things the ILPF
needs to sort out over the coming weeks.


cordially,


--Tony


**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet                   Bpndivid. hard copy   $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA         Small Corp & Gov't   $200
(609) 882-2572 phone and fax                  Corporate            $350 
Internet: cook () cookreport com                 Corporate Site Lic.  $650
http://pobox.com/cook/  for new report: "Tracking Internet Infrastructure"
***********************************************************************