Re: of control and frogs, Re: What is at stake?

[Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com>]

vint cerf wrote:

> this formulation does not take into account the transfer
> of responsibility and authority for policy increasingly
> to NSF and to the so-called Federal Networking Council
> after about 1988. NSF's role increased substantially
> with the creation of the NSFNET.

Yes. Other points were also left out, such as the role
played by BBN in showing that it could work, and
the gradual decrease of NSF's role  to the point were the
NSF was prohibited from spending money on it.

> In any case the principal point is that the USG has
> deliberately relaxed its control over policy as the
> Internet has become increasingly commercialzed and
> internationalized.

Yes, this is the big picture.  But, as central control
was relaxed, trust has evaporated because it was based
on control (or, better yet, fear of control -- see Postel
1998).  However, trust can be based on other factors
in addition to control or even fear of control.

So, the really principal point behind the conformance
discussion (which, BTW, I think should be about how to
make non-conformance public rather than certifying
conformance) is that these other factors must now be
introduced in order for trust to be induced without
re-introducing control or fear of.

Since the cat can, and indeed may, go back to the
bag in this case, it seems to be in our best interest
to find ways to induce trust without recourse to
control (or fear of) as the only solution.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck