[Air-l] Re: AUP (Acceptable Use Policy)
jhuns at vt.edu
Wed May 22 15:20:27 PDT 2002
> But note also a third element which maybe brings us back to where this
> discussion started:
> (3) There continues as you know to be another, more diffuse AUP-like
> device that governs the Internet -- Internet standards. Collectively,
> the Internet's corpus of RFCs (Requests for Comments) and,
> specifically, the BCPs (Best Current Practice documents) which award
> some of them special status, constitute today's version of the NSFNET
> AUP (rfc-editor.org). Those who do not obey the RFCs open themselves
> to losing interoperability.
Yes, i agree to a certain extent. However, as we currently sit on ipv4
ftmp, reverse engineering however illegal in the U.S., is still somewhat
easily accomplished for internet apps depending on your technical
resources. While standards are significant for much of the
interoperability, i see this as significantly threatened in a wide
variety of ways.
> Like any policy document however enforcement of the RFCs/BCPs --
> copyright still held, I think, by ISOC (isoc.org) -- is diffuse and
> somewhat inconsistent.
you are very correct, and as ISOC is in the middle of a political
upheaval right now, I'm considering getting together a isoc
documentation project together to capture some of what has happened and
why it is so very important, but I've not talked to the ptb at isoc
about it yet. However, having been part of several of the occurences
there in the recent past, and given my growing critical stance toward
them, I'm not sure I'm the best person to lead this project, but it
should be at least started.
ietf and the rfc process is fairly easy to document, that is not a
problem, but since the copyrights are held by isoc, and isoc is
currently changing its governing structure to be heavily industry
oriented, there may be problems in the near future. IMHO, isoc is
paralleling the problems most people have with ICANN right now, and that
is not good.
> Especially so on the Internet where said enforcement is collaborative
> not centralised. Hence non-compliance means, again, likelihood of less
> interoperability (outcomes of provider-by-provider decisions), not
> black-or-white on-net or off-net status.
I call this the IM(instant messaging) paradigm right now.
> Social sanctions not legal sanctions comprising governance whose
> institutional and informal materialisations are a quite valid research
> subject, as socio-legal scholars might chime in.
yes, we'll see how this plays out, it is definitely in the arena that
needs research, I'm into ISOC/IETF/IAB in situ right now, though the
list died after my last post.... so we'll see.
if others are interested, I'd love to get together on this sometime for
a f2f brainstorming or something maybe at 3.0 or elsewhere.
jhuns at vt.edu
on the ibook
More information about the Air-l