Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement

[james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 1, 2017, at 11:14, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:44 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

According to that view, it will be someone else, unless "our" plan to
protect "society" from the criminal users of the Internet is adequate.

Absolutely speaking *only* for myself here, but I view talking about plans
"to protect society from the Internet itself" like a pretty much straight up
attack on the fundamental idea of an Internet Society as a thing worthy of
that name.

[…]
Your response here is the response typical of many technologists,
'nothing to do with me’.

I think you may have mischaracterized my response here. When I speak only for myself, I am disclaiming any representation of the entity that owns the domain name in my email address. I’m speaking as an individual and independent participant, and I think the Internet society, and the set of political, philosophical and economic problems it poses, has everything to do with me.

Having been involved in national politics in
multiple countries, I can tell you that approach is not going to be
remotely acceptable to elected representatives whose constituents rely
on them.

Congressional, EU action is inevitable, in fact it has already begun.

I’m not taking "that approach” at all. I’m trying to point out that a strong majority our elected representatives, particularly most of the ones who are powerful members of the ruling parties, view the fundamental concept of an Internet Society as essentially unacceptable. In that light, I think that revising the ISOC mission statement to align better with their view of the world would be to neuter the ISOC completely. I’m not sure that’s an outcome I would support, but I do think pretending that we aren’t doing that is a road to failure.

The question is one of framing. Right now, the Internet is seen as the
problem because it was the new factor that was introduced and
invalidated the assumptions that the legacy infrastructures depended
on. If we don't want to get regulated to heck and back, we have to
change the conversation so that policy makers understand that the
Internet is the one infrastructure that was originally designed with
the understanding that every device would be connected to every other
device and that this would create a new set of security requirements.

My sense of politics tell me that the pressure for the Internet to be “regulated to heck and back” originates from sources across the full spectrum of politics. It’s an overwhelming and irresistible force. We *will* be regulated to heck and back, and moreover, maybe that’s a thing reasonable people can welcome.

The relevant question here, I believe, is whose political interests will be guarded by the inevitable new regulations, and whose political interests will be damaged in the construction of those guard towers, and I don’t agree there is anything to be gained by lecturing policy makers about how the original design of the Internet was expressly to create a whole new system of security requirements— which, let’s be honest, they have spent the last several decades in a determined and furious effort to sweep those new security issues under a rug conveniently provided to them by technology industry lobbyists. They’re not likely to take that lecturing in the spirit in which we might hope to be seen giving it.

What I would say we should want is a voice that provides some kind of counterpoint to those voices with large sunk costs in the infrastructure that needs to be redesigned and reconstructed for the new world where there is an Internet. There are plenty of other organizations that can devote themselves to advocating for big technology companies, advocating for ordinary private individuals, advocating for returning to an old pre-Internet world, et cetera. Where the ISOC can help, I would say, is to be an otherwise neutral advocate for embracing the new Internet Society, which includes refactoring the world's legacy infrastructure for dealing with the new security requirements.

[…] Well we have built a whole new world and it has replaced the old one. And a lot of people are rather upset with us as a result […].

I know. Most days, lately, I am considering myself one of them. Which is why I am a member of other organizations dedicated, among other things, to regulating the Internet to heck and back. Note well: I am not advocating for ISOC to be yet another one of those organizations. Quite the opposite, actually, I kind of want the ISOC to be neutral about that.

--james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxxx>