Keith Tyler

Computers & Society Final

3-16-98

Borenstein's views on the preferred future of the Internet are well-meant and properly inspired. The "seven basic principles" outlined in CPSR's proposal are derived from ideals which were commonly held in the Internet community, at least at the beginning of the Net's rapid period of popular growth (circa 1994). At that time the need to posit these beliefs in a statement of principles would have been regarded as unnecessary, as they were so commonly held as to go without saying.

Borenstein makes reference to a good old day when "those who could not muster technically coherent arguments were ignored" in the development of low-level (and high-technical) regulations for the Internet. This phenomenon is not a distant one; as recently as the development of CSS1 (developed by W3C during the period after the attempt at the HTML 3 spec failed) one could experience being ostracized from "open" standards groups by either technically or financially advanced interests (or worse, both).

Though Borenstein's view for a brighter future includes the disappearance of the old guard of "technical meritocracy" as it affects the development of standards and of the "governance" of the Internet, it should be noted that in many cases, such an element is still desirable. He observes that those who don't understand why a URL looks the way it does, for example, aren't likely to feel capable of playing a part in Internet governance.

In the far majority of cases, even today, this is clearly unavoidable, and the eager inclusion of such technically ambiguous people in IETF debates isn't desirable. If one is to equate the singular concept of "Internet governance" with the development of Internet standards a la RFC's, as Borenstein seems to, then one needs to ensure that technically inclined people are the major part of that stage of the development.

What is important to think of in this issue is the real way in which Internet standards are decided upon and have been for the past few years. Borenstein paints a picture where the "geek meritocrats," or perhaps the infamous 'cabal,' exist as a secret oligarchy of elders which make the decisions for the global village. What isn't recalled in his imagery is that Internet standards are not decided based solely on the merits of the person making a proposal or even the proposal itself as it exists 'on paper.' Rather, they are more frequently decided upon via actual use of the technology being designed, with those technologies which work the best (or simply those that are accepted by the majority of sites) being settled on collectively and turned into standards as RFC's. The definition of the elite decision-making group dissolves into an image of blurred hierarchies - or simply the congregation of people with different needs and interests as to their use of the technology.

Borenstein rightly warns against the potential for commercial interests to fill the void from where this technical oligarchy has been deposed. What is not evident here is the likelihood that this invasion of commercial interests is not just passively tolerated by the old guard and their supporters, but is really welcomed, as their own commercial and financial interests are piqued by the newfound ability of these professionals to make money in the sector where the layperson literally connects into the Net. If one were to survey the names on many of the longest-lasting or most legendary RFC's, one would find repeated certain names which are nowadays doing well from the Internet business (one good example being the names of the founders of BBN, now a subsidiary of GTE). In fact, it seems likely that the "large, well-funded organizations" which are able to 'stack the deck' in today's IETF include many of the same hole-in-the-wall, esoteric computer companies of a few years ago whose technical merits garnered it a seat on the Net's high council.

So the distinction between the technical companies of old and the commercial companies of today as far as Internet standardization is concerned is not as sharp as Borenstein suggests. And if the open standards process has become threatened by commercial interests, its not because the process was especially vulnerable to pressure; the system was rather immune to outside pressures for some time. Rather, it's because the influx of layperson users has brought with it a propensity to turn to the commercially powerful solution rather than the technically reliable one. As a result, the encouragement of commercially vulnerable people to get involved with the "Internet governance" process can only result in an increased sphere of influence for commercial software.

According to Borenstein's article, CPSR has given itself a number of daunting tasks to pursue for the current fiscal year, aside from promoting their seven unalienable principles of the Net (at which I cant say they have yet been successful). Borenstein mentions a goal to "bring sufficient understanding to a broader public" to encourage participation in the standards process. But what understanding is desired? Are we talking about the understanding of the basics of how the net works (such that the average user will know at least as much about the Net as they do their TV set or their car), or are we talking about more radical education such as waking laypeople up to the threat of commercial interests promoting bad software with long update periods as Internet standards?

Most people aren't interested in listening to either lines of thought, and the lack of prominence of CPSR's pedagogy, at this late point in their program year, doesn't bode well for CPSR's ability to enlighten the masses. Borenstein further obscures the potential for this plan to become popularly rallied around by retreating to a defense of an anarchical system as a system of governance - a fully admirable idea but one which is highly unlikely to find popular support, with politics, commerce and media even inside today's Internet realm being what they are.

In order to bring about an Internet governance system that will work to the best interests of the future success and life of the Internet, that system must return to its roots as a technically biased system, either by the feared prospect of reconstricting to the pseudo-cabal system, or by expanding to increase the competence of all Internet users in the hope that, aside from being able to make more educated decisions on what is the most reliable and robust course of action, they will be able to see the benefits of publicly developed software over commercially promoted software, and resist the inroads that commercial interests are making in the Internet sphere.

It is not in CPSR's seven principles where the real difficult task lies. Almost all of the principles are such commonly held ideals that their promotion as an innovative plan is redundant to most people - especially those who are most likely to come across it. The difficult task lies in the ability to spread the philosophy which these principles are based on to the new boatful of users coming ashore, who have so far taken up residence in this New World without any new or better regard for its existing inhabitants. With the laudable elements of anti-commerce and anarchy, which Borenstein admits are part of the heart of the argument, this 'Common Sense' for the 1990s is likely to find itself shelved unless CPSR - and the rest of us who care, and agree - manages to really promote it to the Net and to the world.