[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

[John Curran]

On Dec 26, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi at gmx.net> wrote:

> * John Curran wrote:
>> The counterpoint is that the technically community has often discounted
>> the real-world public policy implications of its work, with the result
>> being lack of government engagement where it's needed.  To be specific,
>> there are often underlying assumptions that the only effective approach 
>> in areas such an unsolicited bulk email, viruses and botnets is improved
>> countermeasures, whereas actual engagement with governments working a 
>> common framework of mechanisms (technical, operational, _and_ legal) 
>> against the underlying phenomena might yield more effective results.
> 
> One can make that assumption without dicounting any "real-world public
> policy implications" so your specific example does not illustrate your
> point.

That's perhaps a matter of perspective (as to whether the real world
public policy implications are being discounted), but point taken.  

Sometimes it's just a question of solutions developed in a different
context.  For example, the various spam workarounds (block lists, 
content-based filtering) developed by the technical community do work
to some extent, but are effectively predicated on Internet bandwidth
being relatively inexpensive so you can deal with the problem at the
final receipt.  For developing economies with limited uplinks (e.g. 
islands), losing 75% of your uplink capacity to spam (that will 
eventually be deleted at the recipient mail server) is still a major
issue, one that will just get worse until there is recognition of some
limits to what technical measures can accomplish and engagement on 
the underlying accountability/enforcement problems.

> It would be nice, as another example, to have laws against deceptive soft-
> ware practises that result in people "installing" software they do not
> want to have, which is the main source for "viruses" in my experience,

Acknowledged - a good example.  Another can be found in the IETF's recent
pervasive monitoring work, where the current "best practice" draft cites
the need for technical measures to make monitoring difficult, but then 
goes on to note: 
   
  "And the non-technical (e.g. legal and political) aspects of mitigating 
   pervasive monitoring are outside of the scope of the IETF.  The broader
   Internet community will need to step forward to tackle pervasive
   monitoring, if it is to be fully addressed."

While it is true that technical measures should always be explored for
addressing problems, it is good to see see recognition that the Internet
is not an island unto itself, and that sometimes working outside of just
the realm of technical options might be necessary for a durable solution.
To the best of my understanding, this aligns with the purpose of "1net" -
a neutral, focused initiative to discuss selected Internet issues with 
the intent of working towards actionable collaborative solutions.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.