[discuss] Another couple of items
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 01:42:09 UTC 2014
On 14/01/2014 11:35, Avri Doria wrote:
> At risk of being labelled an Ig professional, which sounds like a bad
> thing to be, I wish to comment a little.
> On 13-Jan-14 17:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I've posted another couple of items that may be of interest.
>> Three types of issue:
>> 1. Matters of public interest regardless of the Internet;
>> 2. Matters of some public interest specifically linked to
>> the Internet (“boundary issues”);
>> 3. Technical matters of limited public interest
> Here I think you miss one type which varies from you others:
> 4. Issues that while of public interest regardless, are transformed by
> the Internet.
> These go beyond the boundary condition you define.
> You also seem to not admit to the degree to which technology cannot be
> separated from its public impact and that this is what produces public
No, what I'm saying is that the public impact, in the vast majority of
cases, is not the result of implementation choices. It's a result of
fundamental aspects of IT, not of design choices by Cerf, Kahn,
Mockapetris and all the others. That's the point of my two slides
with 3 columns.
> And to some degree, each option in a protocol may have a
> social impact even if they only appear to be trivial technical choices
> of flipping one bit one way or another.
They may, but the vast majority don't, IMHO.
> Until we have done impact analysis of the technology, we do not know to
> what degree there are legitimate public interests attached to a
> particular bit of tech. But there is an overriding public interest in
> knowing that impact and having the discussions.
I don't believe you can know it by a priori analysis. I certainly
believe that a posteriori analysis is useful (and that it will
show very few genuine impacts of specific design choices).
> Facile phrases we don't really define well, especially things like net
> neutrality, and the intentionally ambiguous language of diplomats? Sure
> we Ig professionals* have a real problem with that.
Yep, politicians are the worst; let's not enourage them.
> * which I define as anyone who has ever been paid for doing something
> Igish. Many are just amateurs, who do it for the love.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss