nanog mailing list archives

Re: BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty


From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:23:03 -0400 (EDT)

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Curran" <jcurran () arin net>

On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
The problem here is, of course, one of externalities and the Common
Good, hard sales to make in a business environment.


"Common Good" situations are readily dealt with, but generally not on a
voluntary basis. You establish how the resource is to be managed, and
then you put in place mechanisms to deal with enforcement. The problem
is that en-force-ment contains "force", which is something that we
really don't want anyone (or set of anyones) using except "governments"
(which in our social constructs are the only ones supposed to be telling one
party under penalty of force not to do something otherwise in its best
interest.)

Basically, though there are lots of other things that are close.

The problem, of course, with asking governments for help is that the
output often does not resemble anything related to the original problem
statement and can make the situation worse...

Yup, a problem which is indeed perennial, and which we mentioned in an
earlier set of exchanges.

If we had truly global operational best practices for the Internet (ones
that went through a fairly well-defined policy development process which
included multiple operator forums from around the globe) then you might
have a solid chance of producing output which avoided the various anti-
competitive aspects, and yet were a reasonable basis for governments
to then step up and indicate should be required for ISPs in their
operations.
It wouldn't take very many governments asking "How do I reduce SPAM
and DDoS attacks?" and hearing back "Please require ISPs to adhere to this
Best Common Operating Practice Foo-01" before it became common
practice.

Indeed, but I have an even better example of how that's already done, that
is probably pertinent.

The National Electric Code is assimilated law now, I think, in every
state in the US.  It is promulgated by the National Fire Protection 
Association, which is a standards organization originally started by 
insurors to reduce their exposure and expenses; by professional consensus,
they have become, effectively, a lawmaking body.

So they're not the government, they're subject-matter experts, technically
competent to have opinions, and their opinions are assimilated into 
controlling law.

Is BCP38 *not* well enough though out even for large and medium sized 
carriers to adopt as contractual language, much less for FCC or someone to
impose upon them?  If so, we should work on it further.

If not, do carriers need to be threatened with its imposition to get them
to adopt it contractually?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274


Current thread: