Milton Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just ran across the gem below while wading through reams of backed
> up emails. I can't even tell who wrote it.
>
> Whoever it is described IETF as the "single largest repository of
> sane understanding of the social consequences of the Internet."
>
> Social consequences, eh? Take that, all you economists,
> psychologists, historians, sociologists, law professors, and other
> rabble who think you have something to contribute. Who needs you? If
> I can design a protocol and make a computer hum, I must know all
> there is to know about the social consequences of the Internet.
>
> I have clearly been going about this all wrong. I will no longer
> read about such things as network externalities, cost models,
> property rights, laws, institutions, user behavior, regulations, and
> the historical evolution of large technhical systems. Surely the
> clue to the social consequences of the Internet is to be found deep
> within some RFC I haven't seen before...
>
>> Thousands of people think it [IETF] still is...thousands also think
>> that it is the largest single repository of sane understanding of the
>> the social consequences of the Internet.
I would have to say that in a funny way, though Mr. Mueller
was joking, the exact truth is that - no matter what the many
academics, pundits and experts may believe - it is these RFCs,
assorted technical "standards" and the many implications
locked within their densneness that is controlling this network.
Far more than any rationalized or discursive process it is the
philosophically stupid, politically undeclared, conceptually
unexpressed plodding standard setting of technocrats and their
mineons who are calling the tune here.
At the core of all of these many protocols and procedings are
various ideologies and ideas many of which *never* meet the light
of debate or dissent. They are pre-agreed upon by anyone who counts
and anyone who disagrees is ostracized, allowed infinite cyber-chain
to run with but *no* influence in the new halls of Internet power...
the various closed and dictatorial offices deciding the real nature
of Internet evolution (IETF, IESG, IAB, Cerf's W3, ICANN, ETC). The
true nature of this power is disclosed obliquely in the following
articles, both gleaned from the hallowed IETF mailing list:
Chris Rapier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=
= I'm reasonably confident that certain readers of this have
= a highly inflated sense of the true power of the IETF. This
= being the case I would like to take a moment to sum up my
= feelings regarding this power.
=
= The IETF wields *no* real power. Not a damn bit. They do
= not legislate. They cannot enforce. They can not exact
= punishment. They do not speak with one voice. The only
= thing the IETF can do is persuade. The impact of their
= persuasion comes solely from confidence that others have
= placed in the process of the group. In many ways they are
= the best examples of a toothless dog we have today.
=
= Why some people assume the IETF has power is beyond me. I
= think it may stem from a need to blame something for their
= own failures. To place blame on some amorphous evil entity
= is much easier than recognizing one's own shortcomings.
= Instead of critical self examinations they thrash wildly at
= anything that is successful and effective. They cry out
= against repression that doesn't exist and cabals made out of
= the mists of their minds. Its kind of sad really. Still,
= better they rail against the IETF than join some militia
= group.
Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> comments:
-
- The IETF is not meant, nor is it, an organization of
- regulation or legislature. The only reason for its present
- existence is to allow the internet population to agree on
- and follow a standardized set of "Best Current Practices
- based on current technology and a desire to be able to keep
- packets moving from this side of the globe to the other."
-
- This basically means that it is in existence just to make
- sure the internet continues to interoperate through the
- varying levels of old and yet to be deployed technology.
-
- That's all...
Well that is all. However *that* appears to have considerable and
often highly profitable consequences. Consequences that effect the
way the hundred and fifty million (and counting) people communicate
with each other. Effecting what machines and inter-operability can
and cannot be deployed. Inserting standards and barriers to many
practices which appear to benifit many people but may well bite
into the commercial activities of many of the arbitrers pf these
"Best Current Practices". Who do their damnedest to ensure it is
they who control the flow and not anyone else.
The IETF and affiliated and associated bodies are the de facto
government of the new media. Dissent is encouraged within certain
limits usually described as civil discoure or "netiquette". Outside
those limits is a limbo where nothing seems to matter, nothing is
seen to exist. From the perspective of stalwart IETF-ers at least.
We may rant and we may rave add infinitum, using their medium even!
But not a word, not a hint or murmur will influence the real un-
folding of the master plan. The meetings will go on, the conferences
and planning continue regardless.
In the closed circle be it a cult, sub-culture or dominant power
grouping, there is no admission beyond membership, no communication
outside of affirmation and reaffirmation of the same principles,
ideas and yada. In the IETF/ETC we witness one such closed circle.
All of the assertions to the contrary by it's true believers is
understandable but false. And this fact is revealed to be just so
when some of the more zealous devotees such as the author Mueller
quoted above, such as Mr. Metzger, Vienna's Ignatovich covern and
others wax poetic or manic on their brave new church of invincible
wisdom, power, insight and so on and so forth.
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network _ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat
http://robin.fcn.net
