[Air-l] Re: AUP (Acceptable Use Policy)

[jeremy hunsinger]

>
> 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.


jeremy hunsinger
jhuns at vt.edu
on the ibook
www.cddc.vt.edu
www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy
www.dromocracy.com