►
From YouTube: IETF-DINRG-20210603-1900
Description
DINRG interim meeting
2021/06/03 1900
B
B
A
B
Yeah,
let's
start
welcome
everybody
to
what
we
hope
is
the
second
to
last
dinergy
online
meeting.
I
think
we
might
have
probably
one
more
next
itf,
but
then
I
hope
we
can
meet
each
other
face
to
face
finally,
yeah
great
that
you
made
it
thanks
for
your
interest,
so
my
name
is
kuch
and
my
coach
is
alicia
he's
also
in
the
meeting
and
yeah.
This
is
a
dinar
girtf
energy
workshop
on
centralization
in
the
internet,
just
some
housekeeping
and
some
hints
so
all
the
material.
B
B
C
B
Okay,
okay,
just
quickly
the
the
usual
housekeeping,
so
we
are
under
the
irtf
ipr
rules.
So
this
is
just
to
say:
this
is
about
ipr
disclosure
and,
if
you're
new
to
this,
please
check
out
these
these
links.
So
in
general,
you
are
expected
to
let
us
know
if
in
case
there's
any
ipr
rated
thing
that
you
see
or
contribute
also
not
well
yeah.
We
already
talked
about
that.
This
meeting
is
recorded
and
by
participating
you
express
your
consent
of
say
being
recorded,
or
at
least
the
record
been
taken.
B
B
And
so
to
those
of
you
who
are
new
to
irtf
meetings,
so
the
the
irtf
is
a
sister
organization
of
the
ietf
which
is
actually
producing
internet
standards.
The
irtf
is
concerned
with
research.
So,
whatever
we
do
here,
it's
not
about
standardizing
any
internet
protocol,
and
so
please
don't
refer
to
irtf
research
groups
as
working
groups
of
the
itf
or
something
yeah
check
out
the
itf
primer.
If
you
want
to
know
more
about
this
all
right,
so
our
agenda
today
essentially
has
three
main
parts.
B
So
we
have
two
panels
discussing
different
aspects
of
centralization
and
then
a
30-minute
open
discussion
slot
where
basically
yeah.
We
won't
just
want
to
collect
feedback
and
on
everything
that
has
been
said
or
on
the
topic
at
large
and
the
panels
are
like,
like
like
two
two
general
topics.
So,
first
of
all,
we
want
to
understand
a
bit
better,
so
yeah.
Why
does
centralization
happen
and
so
a
bit
of
an
economic
historical
perspective?
B
How
bad
is
it
really
and
then,
in
the
second
panel
we
will
discuss
more
about
okay.
How
did
we
actually
get
here?
So
is
there
any
also
architecture,
technical
reason
that
led
to
centralization,
so
we
are
scheduled
to
run
for
three
hours,
which
is
really
really
long,
and
that's
why
we
yeah.
I
want
to
have
a
break
in
the
middle.
So
after
the
first
panel
we'll
do
a
15
minutes
break.
B
Well,
I
mean
so
if
you
have
been
attending
energy
in
the
past,
so
you
know
that
there
is
this
general
observation
and
we
discussed
it
here-
a
lot
of
yeah
increasing
internet
consolidation
centralization
on
the
one
hand
we
kind
of
enjoy
the
all
the
services.
On
the
other
hand,
we
also
recognize
problems
of
power,
concentrations,
certain
problematic
business
models
and
so
on
and
yeah.
In
the
past
we
had
seen
quite
many
proposals
so
from
both
outside
and
inside
the
say,
iitf
at
large
community
at
say,
different
maturity
levels.
B
So
you
know
things
like
reimagining
routing
systems
or
naming
resolution
systems,
rpki
blockchain,
inspired
proposals.
There
are
also
larger
architectures,
like
ipfs,
for
example,
and
we
thought
yeah,
maybe
before
really
getting
into
all
these
solutions.
It
could
actually
be
good
to
take
a
step
back,
and
so
we
understand
the
problem
really
well.
B
B
So
I
mean
this
whole
topic
is
obviously
a
a
big
one.
So
it's
a
it's
a
big
challenge,
and
so
what
we
deliberately
said
is:
okay,
let's,
let's
do
a
slow
start,
really
and
really
allow
some
time
for
gaining
this,
this
deep
understanding,
and
so
really
just
let's
not
jump
into
solution
development
too
early,
and
but
this
also
means
okay.
B
This
will
not
be
done
by
today's
meeting,
so
this
is
going
to
be
a
long
effort
over
time
and
so
alicia,
and
I
discussed
this
a
lot,
and
so
we
said
okay,
this
workshop
is
likely
to
be
the
first
step
and
we
also
really
want
to
allow
some
time
say
for
us
in
the
community
to
reach
a
shared
understanding,
and
so
this
is
something
that
cannot
be
done
by
just
one
one
meeting
and
yeah
again.
So
this
workshop
is
really
like
starting
to
yeah.
B
It's
gonna
scratch
the
surface
a
bit
and
hopefully
will
help
to
some
understanding
of
why
centralization
is
problematic,
and
so
also
how
bad
is
it
really
today,
maybe
also
comparing
it
with
historical
and
events
or
other
technologies.
Other
sectors
and
yeah,
maybe
also
helping
us
to
to
develop
some
first
insights
in
what
factors
actually
enabled
it,
and
so
it's
also
often
say
one
perspective
is
also
often
I
mean
well.
Maybe
the
internet
is
just
too
successful
and
there's
nothing
really
we
could
could
have
done
or
we
could
say.
B
Before
the
workshop,
we
asked
people
to
submit
yeah
their
views
on
the
topic,
and
so
luckily
we
we
got
really
many
quality
submissions.
So
thanks
a
lot,
everybody
who
submitted
something-
and
we
listed
all
the
submissions
in
the
data
tracker,
so
you
can
find
them
all
there
and
we
really
encourage
you
to
to
read
them.
This
is
really
good
material.
B
As
you
can
see,
this
is
a
lot
and
so
from
this
set
of
submissions
we
try
to
yeah
pick
the
ones
also
pick
panelists
of
proposals
or
submissions
that
we
are
say
rather
problem
oriented,
not
so
much
solution
oriented.
We
will.
We
think
we
will
get
to
these
topics
later,
but
I
think
really
all
these
submissions
are
really
interesting.
So
please
check
them
out.
If
you
have
time.
B
Explanation
of
how
we
want
to
run
the
panel
and
also
the
the
discussion
so
in
each
panel
we'll
have
a
20-minute
introductory
talk,
and
so
after
that
we
kind
of
planned
like
30
minutes
for
like
a
panelist's
discussion,
including
a
short
intro
of
each
of
the
panelists,
but
we
also
want
to
collect,
say
the
opinions
from
the
rest
of
us
in
the
meeting,
and
so
it's
always
difficult
to
predict
how
many
people
will
show
up
and
so
how
open
we.
We
can
discuss
these
things.
B
So
what
we
would
we
suggest
is
that
please
type
questions
or
comments
that
you
may
have
say
during
the
panel
into
the
chat,
and
so
we
try
to
yeah
go
through
this
and
try
to
pick
as
many
as
we
can
and
then
throw
them
through
the
panelist
at
the
end,
in
a
10
10
minute
slot,
okay
and
with
that
yeah,
let's
start
the
first
panel.
So
why
does
centralization
happen?
And
is
it
really
bad?
B
So
this
is
about
the
economic,
societal,
maybe
also
regulation
or
legislation
perspective
about
centralization
in
the
internet
and
elsewhere
and
yeah.
I'm
happy
that
jeff
houston
offered
to
do
the
introductory
talk
and
the
other
panelists
are
handing
schulterny
dominic
lewinsky
and
I'm
going
to
moderate
this
panel.
D
Yes,
right
in
my
part
of
the
world
it's
morning
so
good
morning,
all
for
for
others
who
are
it's
either
in
the
middle
of
the
night
or
or
you
know
getting
there,
my
commiserations
and
for
those
enjoying
the
luxury
of
being
in
the
middle
of
the
day.
I
envy
you
what
I'd
like
to
do
in
the
next
20
minutes
is
actually
give
a
very
broad
perspective
on
this
question.
D
Looking
at,
I
suppose
where
it
came
from
and
its
antecedents
and
it's
probably
as
you'd
guessed,
not
necessarily
a
new
question
is
the
dominance
inside
an
industry
of
a
small
number
of
extremely
large
players,
otherwise
known
as
a
cartel
necessarily
bad,
or
is
this
a
natural
outcome
of
the
nature
of
that
particular
industry?
So
you
know,
obviously,
as
I
said
this
is.
D
The
other
thing
about
the
united
states
was
unlike
many
european
countries.
At
the
time
there
wasn't
a
rich
entrenched
aristocracy
defending
the
status
quo.
There
was
nothing
and
so
that
dislocation
created
social
opportunity,
economic
opportunity
and
the
exploitation
of
that
opportunity
created
disruption.
D
At
the
same
time,
the
railway,
an
invention
of
around
40
years,
previously
actually
allowed
a
massive
expansion
of
the
movement
of
goods
and
services.
You
didn't
need
to
put
the
steel
foundry
near
the
steel,
the
the
iron
ore
mine
or
near
the
coal.
You
could
move
goods
around
efficiently
and
quickly
without
relying
on
you
know
a
huge
network
of
waterways
to
bring
goods
to
where
they
could
be
produced
and
manufactured
into
something
else
cheaply
efficiently
and
in
the
case
of
folk
who
live
in
the
frozen
north.
D
All
around
the
year,
you
didn't
need
to
wait
for
the
rivers
to
thaw.
This
was
a
massive,
a
massive
change.
The
other
thing
that
happened
in
the
united
states
was
liberalized
capital
markets
and
indeed,
they
encouraged
offshore,
invest
investment.
So
a
lot
of
the
money
that
came
in
in
the
1870s
to
actually
fund
this
was
actually
european
rather
than
american.
In
nature.
Don't
forget,
the
civil
war
had
largely
destroyed
the
domestic
and
american
economy
such
as
it
has
existed
before
then,
so
those
liberalized
capital
markets
encouraged
a
new
wave
of
capital.
D
The
other
very
phenomenal
mention
at
the
time
was
the
telegraph
and
later,
in
this
period,
the
telephone,
because
in
some
ways
efficient
communication
allows
the
projection
of
power
beyond
your
village.
Beyond
your
town
allows
your
projection
to
power
into
a
much
broader
geography,
and
so
that
combination
with
the
telegraph
and
the
railways
actually
allowed
you
to
think
for
the
first
time
of
national
scale
enterprises
and
what
sort
of
happened
in
the
us
was.
D
This
massive
transformation
of
very
small
scale,
cottage
industries,
which
were
limited
by
all
those
factors
of
capital,
projection,
trans
earth
and
transportation,
became
opportunistically,
highly
efficient,
large-scale
industries,
and
so
we
got
this
this
period
that
I
think
any
american
high
school
student
who's
gone
through.
The
american
high
school
system
would
have
understood
and
been
taught
the
gilded
age
that
period
of
around
30
odd
years,
where
the
entire
internal
economy
of
the
united
states
was
totally
transformed.
D
D
D
Westinghouse,
the
industrial
conglomerate
started
out,
making
breaks
for
railway
cars,
thomas
edison,
of
course,
with
general
electric
who
who's
later
got
into
nuclear
weapons
in
a
big
way,
amongst
other
things,
and
of
course,
in
the
banking
sector,
jp
morgan
that
funded
most
of
the
others.
So
these
names
are
actually
with
us
today
as
companies
that
they
still
exist.
But
you
know
their
origins
come
from
that
particular
age.
D
D
Now,
if
you
get
to
the
point
where
you're
big
enough
to
write
your
own
rules
for
a
while,
it's
game
over,
you
know
you
just
dominate
everything
and
it
certainly
happened
in
the
us
and
those
companies
effectively
created
the
us.
We
know
and
understand
today
in
their
desire
and
in
their
image
and
efforts
to
try
and
pull
that
apart
took
decades,
and
in
fact,
as
we
saw,
you
know,
u.s
steel.
It's
there
today
standard
oil.
Well,
it's
it's
successes
here
today
and
similarly
at
t,
westinghouse,
general,
electric
and,
of
course,
the
venerable
jp
morgan.
D
All
of
these
are
now
conservative
establishment
figures
in
the
enterprise
landscape.
Now
it
was
obvious
to
american
politicians
even
at
that
time
that
there
were
some
dark
sides
to
this
massive
labor
exploitation,
massive
distortion
of
markets
and
of
course,
once
you
manage
to
gain
control
of
the
market,
then
all
of
a
sudden
you
can
do
monopoly
rentals.
You
can
restrain
trade,
you
can
actually
enforce
the
interaction
between
entities
and
you
can
create
barriers
to
entry
that
keep
everyone
out,
and
so
the
sherman
act
was
intended
to
protect
the
public
from
these
perils
of
failure.
D
So
it
was
trying
to
constrain
behaviors
in
the
market,
anti-competitive
arrangements,
market,
monopolization,
restraint
of
trade
and
so
on
in
order
to
protect
consumers.
Ultimately-
and
this
was
applied
to
three
of
the
giants
of
the
day-
standard
oil,
american,
tobacco
and
general
electric-
and
then
it
wasn't
applied
again,
not
until
1982.
D
In
the
breakup
of
a
t
and
and
the
you
know,
subsequent
mini
bells
and
everything
the
internet
lived
through,
but
then
it
wasn't
applied
again.
Why
I'm
like?
It's?
Not
as
if
america
didn't
breed
giants,
they
bred
a
lot,
and
so
what
was
the
change
in
political
will
that
stopped
the
sherman
act
being
invoked
for
70
years
and
interestingly,
stopped
at
being
invoked
successfully
since
1982
for
the
ensuing
40
years?
D
Well,
you've
got
to
be
aware
when
you
start
breaking
up
monopolies
that
are
effectively
too
big
to
not
only
fail
but
too
big
to
be
broken
up,
but
once
you
break
them
up
you're
going
to
cause
economic
panic,
so
1910
1911
in
in
the
us
there
was
a
depression.
Why?
Because
of
the
breakup
of
those
three
giants,
particularly
standard
oil
and
american
tobacco,
and
so
those
unintended
side
effects
caused
a
shift
in
the
political
thinking
that
going
after
these
giants
with
a
very
large
stick
might
end
up
hurting
yourself.
D
The
other
part
is
that
the
giants
learned
very
very
quickly
that,
rather
than
treating
the
political
arena
as
their
toy,
they
actually
needed
it
to
offer
it
some
level
of
respect
and
actually
guide
the
political
process,
otherwise
known
as
lobbying,
to
make
sure
that
their
interests
were
brought
to
bear
on
the
political
process.
So
the
sherman
act
wouldn't
be
invoked
and
many
other
detrimental
political
actions,
and
so
political
lobbying
became
part
of
the
process.
D
D
What
are
we
trying
to
achieve
here
is
big,
bad
or
other
behavior
is
bad
and
one
of
the
sort
of
points
of
sort
of
where
this
argument
coalesced
was
in
a
I'm,
not
sure
if
he
was
a
justice
or
an
associate
justice,
you
can
look
him
up
in
the
u.s
supreme
court.
I
think
he
was
an
associate
of
some
form
and
he
was
there
for
some
time.
He
argued
that
big
was
bad.
D
By
definition,
it
wasn't
the
behavior,
it
wasn't
what
they
did
it's,
what
they
were,
because
he
argued
that
once
you
get
big
inside
any
particular
market,
then
monopolies
are
a
natural
outcome,
of
course,
but
monopolistic
behavior
is
equally
a
natural
outcome
and
that
monopolistic
behavior
totally
harmed
competition.
It
harmed
customers
and
it
harmed
further
innovation.
D
You
know,
even
though,
at
t
created
a
huge
amount
of
the
technical
innovations
that
later
became
the
internet
by
suppressing
that
for
many
years
when
it
was
finally
unleashed,
the
effects
were
disruptive,
explosive
and
fundamental,
and
those
kinds
of
shocks
are
harmful
to
a
you
know,
a
well-ordered
conservative
society
and
to
try
and
avoid
that
you
actually
need
to
try
and
avoid
that
suppressing
of
innovation.
You
need
to
manage
it
more
gently,
the
other
thing
he
noticed
the
quality
of
products
declined.
The
prices
tended
to
rise.
Once
market
dominance
achieved.
D
There
was
no
one
to
compete
with.
I
can
charge
what
I
want
and,
of
course
the
issue
is
the
bigger.
You
are
the
more
you
get
to
say
what
the
rules
are
and
in
essence,
this
whole
issue
of
lacks
regulatory
oversight
has
perils,
because
in
essence,
what
happens
is
what
we
saw
in
2008
that
when
you
get
so
big,
you
can
play
the
argument
of
too
big
to
fail
and
you
can
actually
take
all
your
downside
losses
and
pass
them
to
the
taxpayer.
D
Came
from
theodore
roosevelt,
he
was
u.s
president
in
1901
to
1909
were
effectively
said
we
can
regulate
this,
and
the
issue
is
by
simply
saying
big
is
bad.
You
destroy
the
opportunities
of
economies
of
scale
where
very
large
enterprises
who
can
harness
large
amounts
of
resources.
Large
manufacturing
processes
can
actually
achieve
efficiencies
that
are
otherwise
unobtainable.
D
There
is
no
doubt,
for
example,
if
the
internet
was
not
a
case
of
around
a
thousand
large-scale
isps,
but
a
hundred
thousand
none
of
them
would
have
access
to
a
sufficient
capital
to
actually
make
infrastructure
investment.
It
would
be
a
small
bunch
of
small
enterprises
struggling
with
an
overlay
on
the
telephone
network,
still
running
analog
modems,
and
so
in
some
ways.
If
you
want
to
achieve
massive
change
and
you
need
to
do
massive
investment,
you
need
to
enlarge
large
amounts
of
capital.
D
D
In
1910,
domestic
electricity
was
prohibitively
expensive
for
all,
but
the
absolute
upper
elite
by
the
1930s
it
was
regarded
as
a
universal
service.
Rural
electrification
in
in
the
us,
and
in
many
other
countries
transformed
electricity
into
a
common
accessible
commodity
only
by
volume,
the
same
with
the
auto
industry
luxury
good
in
the
early
1900s,
everyone
expects
a
car
100
years
later
and
these
days
those
cars
are
in
domestic
terms,
incredibly
cheap,
and
so
in
some
ways
big
doesn't
necessarily
produce
bad
outcomes.
D
You
know
that's
inherent
in
private
monopoly
and
and
a
canadian
john
ralston
soil,
I
think,
he's
still
alive,
argued
no
matter
what
the
duty
of
a
shareholder
and
a
private
company
is
to
safeguard
their
own
interest
and
shareholder
value.
That
is
not
the
public
interest
and
you
should
never
ever
ever
expect
the
private
sector
to
advance
or
safeguard
public
interest.
The
two
are
effectively
going
in
different
directions.
D
They
may
or
may
not
come
inside
at
some
point,
but
they
don't
naturally
coincide.
The
private
sector
is
not
motivated
to
safeguard
public
interest,
and
so
you
get
these
interesting
questions
that
if
we
regulate
what
are
we
regulating
is
the
fact
that
a
market
has
been
dominated
by
a
monopoly
or
a
cartel.
D
D
D
These
are
the
ten
largest
companies
by
public
trade
by
public
capital
value.
Only
one
is
a
fossil
fuel
company.
You
know
the
rest.
What's
interesting
is
the
previous
incumbents
in
that
top
10
list.
Aren't
there
all
the
financials
chemicals,
industrials
and
retailers
aren't
there
and
apple's
value
valuation
at
two
trillion
dollars
is
an
extraordinary
capital
that
capitalization
it's
bigger
than
all,
but
eight
of
the
world's
economies.
D
D
In
that
respect,
nothing
has
changed
and
the
same
question
is
still
there.
What's
the
problem:
what's
the
behavior?
Is
it
that
they're
big?
Do
they
exploit
their
workers?
Why
does
everyone
line
up
to
be
a
google
worker?
It's
hard
to
understand
that
they're
being
exploited?
You
know,
what's
the
behavior
that
we're
trying
to
curb,
because
the
issue
is
that
all
of
those
enterprises
focus
on
understanding
the
user.
D
They
focus
on
actually
customizing
a
solution
to
a
market
of
one
and
bringing
all
that
economy
of
scale
to
markets
of
one,
and
so
they
achieve
a
critical
mass
in
size,
sufficient
bulk
that
they
capitalize
me
that
I
can't
I
can't
sell
my
own
space
for
advertising
as
an
individual,
but
doubleclick
google's
vehicle
certainly
does
so
does
facebook,
and
so
they
achieve
a
critical
mass
to
bring
an
asset
to
market
that
individually.
None
of
us
can
so
we
all
use
their
services
because
to
us
our
own
individual
value
is
zero
because
we
can't
sell
it.
D
D
So
you
know,
if
I'm
going
to
paste
all
these
personal
details
on
a
wall
outside
my
building.
Let
everyone
see
it.
That's.
Okay,
I
told
you
I
was
going
to
do
it,
which
is
kind
of
insane,
but
you
know
that's
the
way
this
code
works
because
lobbying.
So
in
some
ways
this
cavalier
attitude
to
data
and
privacy
is
inbuilt.
It's
structural
in
the
nature
of
the
beast,
and
so
what
do
we
want
from
a
public
response?
D
Maybe
we
should
focus
on
the
user
rather
than
dynamics
of
the
market,
because
in
essence
we
should
actually
understand
what
we
want
as
as
members
of
a
society
rather
than
this
abstract
concept
of
markets.
But
you
have
to
look
at
the
efforts
of
the
the
eu
and
gdpr
and
similar
and
the
fines
which,
when
we
talk
about
billions
of
dollars
being
near
minor
fractions
of
a
percent
of
turnover,
then
what
else
do
you
use
if
the
stick
you've
got
is
not
big
enough?
D
This
is
actually
social
changes
of
the
same
scale
as
that
industrial
revolution
in
the
mid
19th
century,
and
this
abundancy
of
computing
and
storage
and
comms
the
transformation
of
power
and
the
mechanisms
to
do
so
are
socially
changing.
But
when
I
talk
about
social
change,
I
actually
talk
about
something
even
more
fundamental
than
that.
D
If
you
can't
verbalize
it,
if
you
can't
express
it,
how
do
you
think
it
search
has
now
replaced
all
forms
of
reference?
Libraries
search
is
the
arbiter
of
concept
of
content,
the
ultimate
decider
of
the
pub
argument,
the
ultimate
tool
for
researchers,
the
ultimate
sort
of
source
of
what
we
talk
about
and
how
we
talk
about
it
and
when
you
think
that
google
search
in
particular
in
the
us
is
89
of
market
share,
bing's
efforts
have
got
to
5
and
no
one
else.
D
I
have
the
world's
knowledge
at
my
fingertips,
but
equally
those
players
who
provided
that
were
also
working
very,
very
hard
to
actually
shape
that
world
that
I
see
and
that
is
incredibly
threatening,
and
so,
as
you
see,
how
do
you
curb
that
is
big
the
problem,
or
is
there
some
other
aspect
of
this
which
has
got
incredibly
out
of
control
and
if
it
is
out
of
control,
what's
the
right
response?
So
with
that,
I
think
I've
set
the
stage
if
I
will
hand
it
back
to
our
panel
chair
and
say.
Thank
you
very
much.
G
G
It's
a
draft
on
protocol
and
engineering
effects
of
consolidation,
and
we
are
always
looking
for
contributors,
but
just
briefly,
I
mean
and
we'll
touch
upon
this
probably
later,
but
I
we
look
at
very
very
briefly
in
the
draft.
We
look
at
the
technical,
economic
and
security
impact
of
consolidation
and
focus
particularly
on
the
changing
architecture
of
the
internet
and
a
couple
of
case
studies,
and
I
I
note
quite
well
that
a
number
of
the
other
contributions
also
have
a
similar
approach.
So
so
I
look
forward
to
a
good
discussion.
Thank
you.
H
B
Very
good
thanks
what
a
great
panel
yeah,
let's
let's
start
discussing
a
bit
so
the
way
I
want
to
run
this
is
so
I
don't
want
to
prompt
prompt
each
of
you
all
the
time
for
for
saying
something.
So
I'll,
introduce
a
couple
of
topics
and
may
ask
some
questions,
but
then
please
do
feel
free
to
have
a
discussion
and
not
don't
wait
for
me
to
to
prompt
you.
B
Let's
start
with
maybe
getting
back
to
characterizing
internet
centralization,
so
jeff
has
given
us
a.
I
think,
a
few
good
examples.
But
so
what
would
you
say?
How
would
you
characterize
internet
centralization
so
hennik?
For
example,
you
have
alluded
to
something
you
called
operational
centralization
in
your
in
your
paper.
H
It
is
that
a
number
of
people
number
of
entities
that
end
up
operating
those
protocols
become
smaller
and
smaller
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
some
of
which
I
alluded
to
in
my
hypo
hypothesized
real
labors
or
not,
was
a
more
theories
than
a
fact
as
to
why
this
happens,
namely,
I
think
this
is
in
my
mind,
is
before
we
get
down
kind
of.
Oh,
let's
do
a
magic
protocol
as
to
that
we'll
fix
our
centralization
in
some
way
or
be
resistant
to
centralization.
H
H
I
mean
another
one
is,
but
my
cdn's
have
become
highly
concentrated
again
in
a
sense
that
a
relatively
small
number
of
entities
operate,
the
vast
majority,
at
least
in
each
country
or
each
region,
the
vast
majority
of
web
endpoints,
namely
cdn,
even
if
they
don't
operate
the
content
directly
in
that,
so
I
think
we
should
distinguish
between
several
different
kinds
of
centralization
along
why
operational
happens
to
be
one
of
them.
I
I
think
implementation
centralization
is
also
number
one
that
I'd
like
to
discuss
at
some
point.
H
I,
namely,
that
the
implementations
that
we
rely
on
open,
source
or
commercial
are
basically
seem
to
converge
to
two
or
three
for
most
protocols,
for
a
variety
of
reasons
which
I
think
might
be
worth
discussing
in
that
the
number
of
operators
generally
converge
to
about
three
in
these
countries,
mobile
operators
and
all
of
that,
the
number
of
operators
of
cdn
same
type
of
number
and
not
if
you're
lucky.
If
you
don't
get
down
to
one
like
you,
do
for
search.
H
G
What
we
are
pointing
out
in
our
draft
is
that
there's
different
types
of
consolidation
on
on
different
layers
of
the
internet
right,
and
I
think
this
is
something
we
we
all
know,
and
I
think
in
particular
you
know
when
it
comes
to
operational
or
hennig's
description.
I
guess
I
should
say
if
I
can
call
it
that
we're
not
talking
about
the
actual.
You
know
protocol
itself,
but
it's
the
development
of
the
protocol
as
well
right.
G
D
So
so,
let's,
let's
unpack
this
and
actually
look
at
what's
going
on,
because
I
think
it's
relevant
to
this
topic
that
what
we've
seen
over
the
last
20
years
is.
We
started
with
the
telephony
market,
where
the
carriage
provider
dominated
all
the
other
industries,
the
telcos
told
you
what
kind
of
handsets
you
could
build
and
connect
to
the
network,
etc,
etc,
and
they
control
the
applications
that
could
run.
D
We
moved
from
the
dominance
of
the
carriage
to
the
dominance
of
platform
and
microsoft's
product
with
windows
was
dominant
for
a
decade
or
two,
because
the
locus
of
control
and
the
locus
of
money
shifted
up.
The
protocol
stack
end
to
end
put
power
and
money
in
in
systems
and
actually
started
to
commoditize
carriage,
and
so
the
telephone
companies
and
all
those
industries
around
the
isps
waned
in
value
and
the
platforms
rose,
but
that's
dying
because
now
what
we're
seeing
is
the
application
itself
taking
over
everything.
D
Why
is
this
happening?
And
I
would
argue
it's
money
now
it
used
to
be
that
the
value
of
a
market
is
based
on
the
aggregate
value
of
consumer
spend
it's
the
economy.
You
can't
spend
what
you
don't
have
advertising
changes
all
of
that,
because
you're
getting
access
to
future
money,
because
the
advertiser
is
willing
to
fund
a
service
based
on
an
expectation
of
what
I
or
you
or
anyone
else
will
do
in
the
future,
and
the
amount
of
money
in
the
future
market
actually
overwhelms
the
amount
of
money
in
the
current
market.
D
D
We're
capitalizing
future
spend
and
bringing
it
to
bear
on
current
markets,
the
folk
who
can
do
that
are
going
to
dominate
and,
as
I
pointed
out
in
the
talk,
it
requires
a
massive
amount
of
volume
to
actually
be
able
to
sell
futures
you
and
I
can't
sell
our
own
future
selling
pro
our
own
future
buying
profile,
but
google
sure
as
hell
can,
and
so
that's
the
first
issue
that
the
market
is
now
distorted
by
capital,
capitalizing
future
and
that's
a
volume-based
gain.
The
other
thing.
D
Oddly
enough,
that's
turned
tail
on
us,
has
actually
been
increasingly
hostile
environment.
Our
protocols
were
designed,
open
and
that's
been
exploited
all
the
time.
No
sane
enterprise
would
run
their
own
dns
or
their
own
web
server
in
their
own
basement
with
their
own
computers.
That
is
an
instant
disaster
for
demolition
out
there
in
the
ddos
world.
Everyone
outsources,
because
the
scale
of
attack
means
the
scale
of
defense
needs
to
be
beyond
individual
capital
capability.
D
So,
oddly
enough
working
hand
in
fist
with
the
economics
of
advertising
is
actually
the
economics
of
of
ddos
and
hostility
and
that
drives
consumers
into
massive
citadels
of
heavily
built
norman
castles
to
defend
their
assets,
and
I
use
those
words
deliberately
because
this
is
not
new.
This
goes
back
a
few
millennia
that
if
you
really
wanted
to
be
safe,
you
know
and
you're
a
norman
you
put
more
rocks
in
the
wall
and
made
it
higher,
because
that's
what
you
needed
to
do
and
then
you
you
paid
for
that
by
getting
everyone
else
inside
those
walls.
G
I
feel
like
we're
heading
towards
the
18th
century
stamp
tax
that
was
put
on
newspapers
right,
so
you
had
to
have
a
stamp
and
it
was
taxed.
Every
newspaper
provider
had
to
pay
daily
to
an
office
down
the
street
before
they
could
distribute
their
newspapers,
and
I
feel
like
we're
heading
towards
that.
As
you
were
saying,
but.
G
With
more
competition,
a
loss
of
economies
of
scale-
okay,
we,
how
do
we?
The
question
I
have
is:
how
do
we
square
that?
I
don't
have
an
answer
to
that,
but
how
do
we?
How
do
we
square
that
right
and
get
what
we
want?
There's
an
interesting
comment
that
I
just
saw
by
tourists
in
the
in
the
in
the
chat-
and
I
I
agree
with
you
that
maybe
we're
it's
a
human
problem
right.
We
we
always
want
something
different
than
what
we
have
and
the
video
service
at
comcast
is
his
example.
There.
D
I
think
the
comcast
example
is
an
industry
in
transition,
in
the
same
way
that
a
very
small
number
of
telephone
companies
literally
became
thousands
and
thousands
of
isps
27
million
people
in
australia,
650
isps
what
a
joke
we
got
down
to
three
again,
you
know
and
it
had
to
happen,
and
I
think
the
video
streaming
is
heading
in
the
same
direction.
You
are
seeing
the
explosion
before
the
consequent
aggregation,
and
this
is
just
a
market
in
flux.
It's
not
the
end
result.
H
Yeah
I
mean,
if
you
want
to
one
since
we're
doing
the
historical
reflection.
I
I
found
tim
wu's
book.
The
master
switch
helpful
because
this
is
written
a
few
years
ago,
so
it
doesn't
really
fully
account
for
what's
been
happening
recently,
but
it
illustrates,
I
think,
an
important
concept.
We
are
mine.
I
think
that
he
rightfully
pointed
to
lobbying
and
political
influence
and
all
of
that,
but
there
is
to
some
extent
in
this
particular
case.
H
I
a
illusion
that
occurred
earlier
for
earlier
technologies,
particularly
radio
and
technology,
a
radio
and
television
which
the
book
talks
about,
namely
where
the
actors
in
that
particular
one
and
I'm
not
talking
about
actors
on
the
stage
yeah
I
mean
I'm
talking
about
various
economic
actors.
Politicians
either
talked
themselves
into
artists
or
were
talked
into
it
or
had
an
interest
in
expounding
that
that
the
technology
was
different
and
in
the
internet.
H
I
think
until
not
too
many
years
ago,
and
you
still
find
out
hi
I
saw
I
saw
I'm
I
is-
is
unfettered
kind
of
techno-optimism
or
bitcoin.
I
guess
is
the
new
version
of
that,
wherever
technology
inherently
resists
bad
things,
and
maybe
if
it
doesn't
do
that,
then
we
haven't
done
quite
the
right
technology.
H
Indeed,
there
was
this
notion
mind
that
you
would
tell
your
introductory
classes
that
I
mean
internet
was
designed,
even
that
probably
is
an
urban
legend
by
a
dopper
aqua
at
the
time
to
survive
a
nuclear
blast,
because
it
was
meant
to
be
decentralized.
You
had
the
notion
of
the
end-to-end
principle,
which
again
had
an
implication
of
decentralization
in
it,
because
you
had
millions
of
end
systems
as
opposed
to
a
few
switches
built
by
my
telephone
company
or
operated
by
the
telephone
company
compared
to
a
telephone
company.
H
It
was
inherently
more
decentralized
and
resisted
the
aggregation
of
power.
All
of
this
was,
in
some
cases
a
benign
in
other
cases,
not
so
benign
illusioned
that
was
largely
built
on
a
historical
notion.
Come
on
in
many
cases,
notion
that
was
good.
A
good
will
and
there's
always
hope.
Many
of
us
who
are
under
technology
feel
truly
do
this,
because
we
hope
that
technology
will
solve
some
problem
as
opposed
to
create
new
ones
arguing.
H
Not
so
I
think
it's
also
good
to
look
back
and
maybe
with
cringing
a
little
bit
as
to
textbooks
and
keynote
addresses
from
maybe
20
years
ago
and
kind
of
the
promises
of
what
were
made
and
not
and
see
why
this
didn't
quite
work
out.
Why
we
had
anticipated
in
that
and
when
again,
maybe
look
at
some
of
the
current
fascination
with
things
like
bitcoin,
which,
if
I
may
say
that
suffers
from
the
same
illusions,
I'm
in
that
I,
as
some
of
the
internet
pioneers,
did
a
various
sort.
H
B
H
I
is
that
clearly
they
are
playing
the
fortress
wall
increasingly,
namely,
you
can
house
your
your
assets,
corporate
and
others
in
those
walls,
and
they
will
at
least
help
defend
you
against.
I
mean
attacks,
foreign
and
domestic
as
they
say,
and
so
and
again
I
don't
see
realistically
that
that
operational
centralization
is
something
that
we
can.
That
can
reverse
it's
just
on
the
resources
or
interests.
For
that
matter
available
I
mean
it
is.
H
I
primarily
had
the
notion
that
the
old
model
I
was
not
sufficiently
focused
on
consumer
benefit,
so
the
idea
was
that
I
might
one
should
look
and
be
on
the
notion,
let's
assume
for
a
moment
in
good
faith.
I
was
to
see
if
consolidation
would
increase
consumer
welfare
in
a
variety
of
dimensions,
lower
prices,
efficiency,
economies
of
scale
and
scope.
H
All
of
that
in
in
soviet
analysis,
and
both
the
federal
trade
commission
and
the
federal
communications
commission
do
that
for
communication
related
on
mergers,
for
example,
was
always
the
argument
is
always
made
that
consumers
will
benefit.
So
when,
like
mobile
services,
when
a
t
tried
to
buy,
I
t
mobile
and
was
rebuffed
on
on
that
particular
score
or
when
I
went
to
mobile
bought
sprint
and
was
not
was
granted
permission.
H
The
argument
was
largely
made
by
one
by
hired
economists.
This
would
produce
an
economic
benefit
to
consumers
in
that,
and
that
is
was
seen
as
the
only
criteria
that
would
allow
rejection
of
that
one
and
it's
often
hard
to
argue
without
giving
the
nature
of
free
businesses
on
the
consumer
side
and
so
on.
H
So
I
I
do
see
the
benefits
that
indeed
for
the
security
benefit
and
the
operational
benefit,
in
the
sense
that
I
we
can
users,
many
of
which
have
no.
I
mean
this
is
true
for
think
of,
I
mean
consolidation
from
think
of
facebook
and
so
on,
handles
because
they
provide
services
that
consumers
I
enjoy
that
are
better
than
they
were
available
when
we
all
had
kind
of
ftp
servers
and
archie,
and
I
they
provide
versus
this
and
they
work.
D
What
counters
centralization
in
today's
world
is
actually
playing
the
national
interest
card.
We
saw
it
at
its
most
stark
in
australia
last
year,
where
rupert
murdoch's
interests
are
obviously
shattered.
I'm
like
the
guy,
is
now
hitting
on
the
long
spiral
to
death,
but
as
part
of
those
throws
of
the
press
industry
dying,
they
decided
that
google
was
taking
all
their
money.
True,
google
takes
all
their
advertising
money,
so
they
went
straight
to
the
national
legislature
and
basically
said
this
has
got
to
stop.
Now.
D
You
can't
outlaw
google,
you
can't
ban
it,
but
what
you
can
do
is
force
the
legislature
to
impose
taxes
and
imposts
on
google
to
directly
cross
subsidize
you,
so
you
can
either
do
it
as
taxes.
Google's
lobbying
like
crazy,
can't
do
that
or
you
can
force
google
to
directly
pay
the
injured
parties,
which
is
happening.
D
I
can
see
a
whole
bunch
of
carriers,
arguing
that
google's
use
of
private
networks
and
private
cable
systems
is
bankrupting
the
economy
of
the
carriage
industry.
So
what
is
the
carriage
industry
going
to
do
straight
to
government?
This
is
a
national
asset.
We
can't
have
it
bankrupted.
We
can't
basically
alienate
all
of
the
capital
investment
in
national
infrastructure.
D
G
I
just
I
want
to
pick
up
on
something
that
jeff
just
said.
Hopefully
you
can.
You
can
all
hear
me
a
bit
better
they're
new,
headphones.
Basically
in
terms
of
jeff
mentioned
the
itt,
and
I
think
that's
an
interesting
approach
to
regulation,
multilateral
approaches
to
regulation.
We're
already
I
attend
the
itt
in
in
some
form
and
they
they're
already
our
standardization
of
regulation
on
a
national
level.
That's
happening
within
the
itu-t,
which
is
not
really
standards.
G
As
far
as
I'm
concerned,
it's
standards
of
the
process,
but
pushed
by
one
one
or
two
nations,
and
that's
really
worrying
and
I
agree
with
jeff.
I
think
that
it
is
going
to
be
on
a
national
bi-national
basis,
a
regional
basis,
of
course
in
in
terms
of
the
eu,
but
I
think
I
think
that
you
know
it's
a
really.
It's
a
really
tough
call,
because
most
users-
let's
just
be
really
honest
about
it.
I
think
someone
mentioned
it
in
their
paper,
but
most
users,
really
you
know,
don't
care
right.
G
They
don't
really
know.
What's
going
on.
They
just
know
the
services
work,
they
can
buy
things
from
amazon
or
get
amazon.
Prime
in
the
us
and
uk,
or
whatever
it
might
be
right
or
in
in
the
case
of
norway,
for
example,
they
can
vips
the
money
over
to
get
a
product
or
whatever
right.
It's.
It's
really
not
something
that
unless
it's
us
or
people
that
are
involved
in
standards
or
international
work.
G
Even
you
know
care
about,
and-
and
that's
what's
really
interesting
about
it
right,
because
if,
as
long
as
the
users
are
delivered
their
particular
service,
they
can
talk
to
their
family,
whatever
it's
okay,
it
works
right.
So
then
the
question
is:
is
that
good
for
the
consumer?
I
think
the
economy
is
of
scale,
certainly
excellent
for
the
consumer,
because
they
don't
see
the
other
aspects
of
it
and
that's
something.
That's
really
interesting
to
take
into
consideration.
B
I
I
D
It
used
to
be,
and
this
is
the
way
the
telephone
networks
were
built,
that
the
amount
of
capital
required
to
create
a
national
service
was
beyond
the
capacity
of
private
capital
markets,
so
you
actually
had
public
investment
and,
oddly
enough
in
many
countries
the
us
was
almost
the
exception.
In
so
many
cases
the
railway
system,
the
road
system,
the
telephone
system
was
all
built
by
the
state,
not
because
it
was
its
natural
role.
It
was
the
only
you
know,
party
with
enough
money.
D
As
someone
said
on
page
mill
road,
you
can't
get
venture
capital
interested
unless
you're
talking
billions
of
dollars.
These
days
me
and
millions
won't
get
you
in
the
front
door,
and
so
what
can
be
done
about
this?
Well,
oddly
enough,
it's
a
capital
issue
and
we
created
these
relatively
lax
and
free
moving
capital
markets
that
tend
to
aggregate
capital
into
vehicles
that
produce
outcomes
and
all
the
other
players
get
massive
barriers.
They
can't
aggregate
the
capital
to
compete.
D
Until
you
do
that
anything,
we
do
at
a
technical
level.
Anything
we
try
and
do
at
a
subject
matter.
Regulatory
level
is
never
going
to
work
and-
let
me
put
it
quite
bluntly:
the
fcc
doesn't
have
long
enough
arms
to
even
slightly
engage
in
the
scale
of
the
problem
over
the
next
10
years.
It's
the
wrong
agency
with
the
wrong
remit
with
not
enough
money,
and
so
part
of
this
is
actually
a
much
bigger
question
than
merely
this
industry.
D
It's
actually
a
question
of
how
do
we
create
large-scale
capital
movement
to
actually
further?
If
you
will
national
communities,
rather
than
having
a
small
number
of
international
bodies,
run
their
own
agenda?
So
that's
not
an
answer.
Tolus!
That's
just
an
observation.
I
don't
see
clean
solutions
other
than
going
to
the
root
cause
thanks
dominique.
What's
your.
G
Yeah,
how
do
we
solve
this
problem?
Yeah?
I
think
I
honestly,
I
think
capital
is
one
one
solution
or
trying
to
large
scale
capital,
something
we're
wrestling
here
in
the
uk
that
just
popped
into
my
mind
as
well.
Is
you
know
most
startups?
Are
software
based
right
and
so
there
there's
an
interest
in
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
encourage
fund
cooperate.
G
H
Just
final
words
yeah,
so
I'm
always
to
be
honest,
be
a
little
worried
about.
Basically,
the
problem
is
so
big,
so
unless
we
solve
this
big
impossible
problem,
we're
never
going
to
make
any
progress.
I'm
not
saying
jeff's
saying
that,
but
that's
a
little
bit
leads
to
a
bit
of
fatalism
approach,
and
I
would
argue
that,
even
though
that's
in
and
of
itself
not
going
to
be
a
solution,
that's
going
to
address
every
single
is
there
are
some
relatively
more
achievable
things
that
we
can
do.
H
Privacy
laws
in
particular
are
going
to
make
the
advertising
industry
less
concentrated
in
that,
and
there's
at
least
some
possibility
that
my
gdpr
has.
I
laid
a
groundwork,
philosophically
speaking
to
that
whether
it
has
worked
in
that
way
is
a
different
issue,
I'm,
but
I
that
certainly
helps
I
making
it
more
difficult
so
to
take
me
from
my
dominic's
point
on
terms
of
having
a
new
startups
and
making
it
difficult
for
these
startups
to
be
acquired.
H
H
Data
portability
can
help
restrictions
on
on
entering
new
markets,
for
example,
the
classical
issues
that
have
arisen
in
the
sherman
act
or
have
been
covered
in
the
sherman
act,
but
not
so
so
that
you
prevent,
for
example,
facebook
or
google
or
any
of
the
other
dominant
providers
from
dominating
adjacent
markets,
because
after
all
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
google
as
a
historically
speaking,
they
started
out
purely
being
a
search
company
largely
and
they
didn't
start
out
having
a
dominant
mobile
operating
system.
It
didn't.
H
I
might
start
out
being
one
of
the
big
three
cloud
service
providers,
and
so
on
I
mean
those
were
adjacent
markets
that
they
entered
bolstered
by
their
financial
war,
chests
that
they
could
do
that
on
and
their
mechanisms
in
principle,
at
least,
if
one
wants
to
do
that.
But
finally
I
mean
one
thing
I
do
say
that
is
that
probably
more
local
is
my
local
community
is,
as
I
said,
early
on,
not
individually
necessarily,
but
as
a
community
we
have
been
complicit.
I
we
have
for
many
years
said.
H
I
don't
have
to
make
hard
decisions,
because
you
hear
this
all
the
time
a
new
google,
a
new
facebook
will
come
along
and
well
just
like.
We
have
replaced
yahoo
search
and
they
replace
alta
vista
or
any
of
the
other
services
or
friendster
or
whatever
else.
You
want
to
hear
that
on
my
name
that
no
longer
exists.
B
B
B
I
I
B
I
K
Hello,
I
am
christian
whitmer
and
I
have
been
looking
at
centralization
of
the
internet
for
a
long
time
now,
because
I've
been
at
it
for
an
actual
very
long
time,
and
I
I
was
asked
to
do
a
short
presentation
on
how
does
centralization
start.
My
goal
here
is
to
put
up
a
couple
of
ideas
so
that
we
can
have
an
interesting
panel
after
that
next
slide.
K
So
the
first
part
I
want
to
say
is
that
centralization
doesn't
stop
when
people
don't
start
by
saying
I
want
to
centralize
something
they
start
by
saying:
hey.
There
is
an
interesting
problem
that
is
not
solved
and
that
problem
is
a
business
opportunity
and
if
we
look
at
star
not
solve
that,
not
not
there
things
like
this
research,
we
don't
know
how
to
do
that.
So
we
got
centralized
service
from
alta
vista
to
yahoo,
to
google
and
they
set
up.
They
didn't
set
up
to
be
the
center
of
the
internet.
K
They
set
up
to
serve
people
and
do
good
search.
Same
thing
goes
for
social
networks
which
are
really
about
managing
identity
contacts,
the
presence
of
people.
We
had
plenty
of
efforts
to
do
these
solutions
for
that,
but
in
fact
that
was
finally
overtaken
by
solutions
like
aol,
then
myspace
and
facebook
and
facebook
has
grown
since
2004,
because
it
was
because
people
like
what
they
are
doing
same
for
email.
K
K
K
Now
why
is
it
so
hard
for
this
food
system
to
work?
Well,
I
mean
this
slide
is
inspired
by
a
post
by
moxie
martin
spike,
asking
why
he
shows
a
centralized
architecture
for
signal
the
messaging
system
and
he
says:
hey.
You
know
what
doing
a
system
like
that
today
is
really
really
hard,
because
the
ecosystem
is
very
complex.
K
K
K
K
If
you
want
to
please
your
customers,
you
have
to
know
your
customers
like
it's
very
nice.
When
you
go
to
a
restaurant
and
the
restaurant
knows
you
and
can
tell
you
hey,
we
have
this
special
dish
on
the
menu
and
we
have
this
new
one
in
your
collection.
You
may
want
to
try
that
I'm
sure
you'll
love
them,
because
they
know
me
and
that's
well,
that's
fine!
K
K
They
are
going
to
know
that
you
usually
eat
at
this
pizza
restaurant
and
they
are
going
to
put
up
the
money
of
that
pizza,
restaurant
or
something
like
that
because
they
know
that's
what
you
want.
The
newcomer
doesn't
have
those
data,
so
they
are
going
to
give
you
the
list
of
the
five
pizza
placed
near
you.
K
K
How
do
you
compete
with
an
incumbent
that
is
providing
its
services
for
free?
That's
actually
very
hard.
I
mean
competing
for
free
is
hard
because
you
have
to
either
have
lots
of
money
in
advance
and
have
convinced
investors
that
you
are
going
to
compete
by
giving
away
free
services
against
someone
who
has
all
those
advantages
and
already
is
giving
you
a
free
services
or
you
are
going
to
have
to
charge,
and
you
have
to
convince
people
that
free
is
bad,
which
kind
of
works
sometime,
but
not
all
the
time
now.
K
The
flip
side
of
advertisement,
of
course,
is
surveillance
capitalism,
and
if
the
market
surveys
you-
because
it
wants
to
know
you
better
because
it
wants
to
serve
you
better,
that
also
has
a
dark
side.
Then,
when
the
market
knows
you
better,
it
can
somehow
control
you,
and
we
have
seen
examples
of
that.
In
the
recent
past
I
mean
with
campaigns
and
control
and
advertisement
and
cycles
of
either
people
getting
addicted
to
some
services
or
people
being
fed
this
information
because
of
the
service.
K
K
Please
now
what
we
have
also
seen
and
and
joff
pointed
that-
is
that
once
those
big
players
are
installed,
they
typically
stay
big
and
there
may
be
some
changes
we
can
see.
For
example,
google
displacing
elta
vista,
but
we
can
think
of
that
as
some
kind
of
an
evolutionary
process
in
which
basically
different
viruses
compete
in
the
in
the
tube
until
one
of
them
has
developed
enough
characteristic
that
they
own
all
the
tube.
K
There
are
very
few
of
those
services
that
have
that
were
powerful
and
then
stop
being
powerful.
One
of
the
example
is
windows,
of
course,
but
it
took
a
whole
lot
of
things
for
windows
to
stop
being
so
powerful,
I
mean.
Basically,
it
took
the
lawsuit
on
the
government
that
distracted
the
management
of
the
company,
so
they
missed
the
cell
phone
market.
K
If
we
think
about
what
was
very
important
there.
In
my
mind,
one
of
the
most
important
part
of
the
windows
concern
decree.
Apart
from
distracting
the
management
of
the
company,
was
to
publish
the
apis
by
publishing
the
apis,
it
allowed
for
interoperation
with
new
systems
and
it
effectively
broke
some
of
the
strong.
L
K
K
You
might
think,
and
you
see
that
all
the
time
the
seagulls
are
not
happy
because
the
eagle
is
trying
to
eat
some
of
them,
eat
their
youth
or
something,
and
they
harass
the
eagle.
They
tend
to
ge
they
team
together,
they
they
peck
on
it.
They
they
follow
it,
etc
until
the
eagle
usually
runs
away,
but
guess
what
we
still
have
eagles
and
they
win
enough
of
the
time
that
don't
get
rid
of
them.
K
K
And
they
my
take
is
that
those
standards
take
a
very
long
time
and
it's
very
hard
to
compete
against
a
centralized
service
by
having
a
district
set
of
competitors
relying
on
standards
that
take
three
years
to
develop
and
also
we
need
to
look
at
the
business
model,
which
is
much
simpler
for
decentralized
service,
because
you
need
the
revenue
I
mean.
The
competitors
will
need
some
revenues
in
order
to
sustain
their
competition
and
they
can
only
get
that
if
they
have
a
sustainable
business
model
which
so
far
has
never
been
very
convincing.
I
I
M
I
I
I
If
you
have
talked
already,
you
decide
to
escape
that's
okay,
but
that,
like
the
other
three
panelists
introduce
themselves
and
say
anything,
they
would
like
to
share
with
the
audience
either
whatever
they
contributed
to
the
workshop
submission
or
otherwise
what
their
reactions
or
reflections
are
with
regard
to
what
they
have
heard
so
far,
so
I'm
kind
of
a
democratic
organizer
say
whatever
you
want,
then
I
will
gonna
wrap
a
several
questions
for
people
to
discuss
so
yari.
You
want
to
go
first.
N
Sure,
thank
you.
Yada
yada
is
my
name.
I
work
for
erickson
research
yeah.
Maybe
it's
just
briefly
mentioned
what
I
provided
in
in
my
contribution
to
the
workshop,
so
so
that
submission
was
on
ways
to
reduce
the
effects
of
centralization,
not
exactly
the
topic
of
this
this
panel,
but
kind
of
related.
N
For
instance,
you
could
have
discovery
mechanisms
you
could
use
well
discovery,
mechanics
make
it
so
that
a
more
diverse
set
of
parties
can
provide
a
service
or
you
could
use
some
means
to
limit
information
so
like,
for
instance,
confidence
like
computing
could
be
used
to
provide
some
evidence
that
a
particular
service
is
running
it.
You
know
in
a
safe
environment
and
user
data
does
not
leave
it,
but
I've
also
in
the
past,
worked
on
other
papers,
not
this
particular
contribution
for
this
workshop,
and
so
last
year.
N
First,
there
was
an
article
in
the
journal
of
cyberbullying.
That
talked
more
about
the
reasons
why
we
are
here
and
how
we
got
got
to
this
place
that
we
are
now
and
yeah.
I
I'm
not
sure
it's
news
to
you,
but
it's
it's
mostly
economics
and
network
effects,
but
there's
a
few
other
things
more
related
to
technology.
I
think
I'll
I'll
say
the
rest
of
the
discussion
for
for
later
and
let
others
continue.
Thank
you.
M
Am
I,
echoing
again
it's
good
now,
okay,
so
this
is
this
is
firefox
people
previously
it
was.
It
was
safari,
so
that
says
a
lot
software
quality.
Sorry
did
I
say
that
yeah.
So
so
I
had
everything
about
what
jeff
was
saying,
but
but
let
me
back
up
a
little
bit,
so
I'm
a
I'm
a
valley
person
that
got
stranded
at
mit,
so
I'm
I'm
not
really
an
academic.
M
You
know
I
occasionally
write
papers
like
like
this
one,
but
I
belong
to
a
group
that
has
been
around
mit
now
at
least
25
years
working
on
what
is
what
is
now
called
computational
social
science.
So
another
popular
name
is,
is
you
know,
big
data
analytics
right
and
so
we've
been
active
with
the
world
economic
forum,
for
at
least
you
know,
15
years
and-
and
our
founding
professor
is-
is
the
chair
of
the
big
data
group.
M
There
you
know
and
we've
been
actually
active
with
the
you
know,
community
in
europe
that
resulted
amongst
others.
In
you
know
the
the
publication
of
the
gdpr
and
for
those
who
are
tracking
what's
happening
in
europe.
There
is
the
data
governance
act
that
will
be
published
soon
and,
interestingly,
some
of
the
concepts
that
we've
been
promoting
over
there,
such
as
data
cooperatives,
are
actually
you
know
making
it
into
you
know
into
that
act.
Jeff
said
something
interesting
about
the
19th
century.
M
The
fact
that
there's
all
these
big,
you
know
companies.
You
know,
you
know
mining,
you
know,
iron,
steel
works
and
so
on
one
thing,
one
common
thread
that
made
you
know
all
of
that
possible
is
labor.
There
was
plenty
of
you
know,
sources
of
labor,
and
so
you
know
this
is.
This
is
why
we
you
know
today,
have
you
know,
labor
unions,
because
there
was
an
attempt
on
the
part
of
individuals
to
self-organize,
so
the
resource
in
the
19th
century
was
labor.
M
Today
the
resource
is
data
right,
so
so
we're
no
longer
in
the
communications
game.
You
know
the
the
new
frontier
is,
is
data
and
and
jeff
said
plenty
about
about
data,
and
so
you
know
what
what
can
we
do
about
data,
because
today
those
big
corporations
that
were
mentioned
earlier?
You
know
in
jeff's.
M
Browser
without
carrying
my
mobile
phone,
you
know
and
so
on,
and
so
you
know,
one
of
the
ideas
you
want
to
put
across
in
this
workshop
is
the
need
for
a
thing
called
a
new
deal
on
data,
which
is
you
know
for
people
who
know
the
history.
It's
sort
of
you
know
hash
back
to
the
60s.
You
know
about
the
new
deal,
you
know
on
the
economy,
and
you
know
it's
it's
okay
to
to
talk
about.
How
did
we
get
here?
M
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
realize
is
that
you
know
the
internet
never
had
any
control
over
the
data
that
flow
through
it.
I
mean
this
is
the
whole
point
of
the
end
to
end.
You
know
principle
right
it
wasn't.
It
wasn't
designed
to
regulate
data,
but
what
we
want
to
get
across
is
that,
assuming
there
is
legal
precedent
there
is
legal
push
for
individuals
to
be
recognized
to
be
co-owners
of
the
data
that
we
created.
M
M
You
know
copies
of
my
data
of
my
gps
location
for
this
purpose,
for
this
particular
duration
of
time,
such
as
kobe,
tracking
and
so
on.
Right,
and
so
what
is
the
infrastructure
of
the
future
that
allows?
You
know
individual
data
holders
to
make
their
data
more
accessible,
both
for
processing
for
storage
and
so
on?
Right,
so
that's
that's
why
you
know
the
topic
of
my
paper
is
like
we
need.
You
know.
You
know.
M
O
So
this
is
in
collaboration
with
colleagues
from
measurement
community,
where
we
measure
web
centralization,
based
on
how
many
websites
are
hosted
by
some
of
the
larger
cdn
or
cloud
providers
and
where
we
pretty
much
see
an
increasing
trend.
So
there
is
definitely
an
increasing
trend
in
terms
of
web
centralization,
at
least-
and
this
is
also
visible
in
the
date,
and
the
second
contribution
to
the
workshop
is
more
a
question
about
equality.
O
So,
as
we've
seen
decentralization
kind
of
lacks
the
scaling
factors
that
these
centralized
systems
have
and
in
order
to
decentralize
things,
the
resources
have
to
be
provided
by
kind
of
the
smaller
players.
You
could
say,
and
there
are
the
questions
essentially,
who
stems
these
upfront
costs
and
these
costs
are
typically
higher
than
in
central
systems.
As
we've
seen
in
the
introduction
talk
where
yeah,
you
cannot
compete
with
free,
so
to
speak.
O
So
if
we
decentralize
things,
obviously
there
would
be
a
risk
of
potentially
and
accidentally
excluding
some
people
with
who
could,
for
instance,
not
provide
enough
resources,
maybe
storage
or
compute
power
or
bandwidth,
and
this
is
obviously
also
something
that
has
to
be
taken
into
account
when
decentralizing
things.
So
there's
a
lot
of
options
for
discussion
there.
So
that
would
also
be
an
interesting
thing
to
discuss
in
this
workshop.
K
Yeah
I
mean
I
am
very
interested
by
the
measurement,
because
one
of
the
question
I
have
is
whether,
in
this
growth
of
centralized
system,
there
is
space
for
some
kind
of
competition
and,
for
example,
the
exception
of
doctor
go
which
is
arguably
competition
against
google
with
a
very
different
business
model,
and
they
obviously
have
some
space.
They
have
a
very
small
share
of
the
market,
but
they
don't
have
nothing.
They
have
like
a
couple
of
percent
in
the
us
a
bit
more
in
europe.
K
That's
something-
and
I
wonder
whether
I
mean
the
the
first
thing
that
we
can
try
to
do
is
see
whether
there
are
open
spaces
despite
centralization
and
what
it
would
take
grow,
those
open
spaces
and
whether
that
would
be
beneficial
for
society.
I
I
think
that
that
may
be
one
of
the
guidelines
that
we
could
have.
I
I
The
turk
in
the
opening
slides
had
supported,
saying
that
how
we
failed,
or
we
just
succeeded
so
well,
and
to
my
personal
view,
I
think
that
both
are
correct,
well
succeeded
so
well,
but
along
the
way,
I
think,
perhaps
because
of
this
unprecedented
success
that
somehow
the
technical
community
may
have
got
blinded
by
the
success
and
overlook
the
certain
things.
That's
why
this
is
a
time
to
look
back.
So
let
me
pick
up
a
few
things
from
thomas
submission.
I
M
Who
had
to
pay
expensive
gas
fees
in
new
jersey
two
weeks
ago,
because
somebody
hacked
through
the
gasoline
suppliers
of
computer
right,
I
mean
it
seems
to
be
so
easy
and-
and
increasingly
I
think
you
know
cyber
attack,
you
know,
might
triple
parts
of
the
us.
You
know
not
just
energy
infrastructure,
but
but
even
financial
infrastructure,
but
but
you
know,
and
who,
who
here
lost
their
data,
when
was
it
equifax
got
hacked?
M
What
was
who
one
of
the
credit
providers
got
hacked
three
years
ago
four
years
ago?
Right
so
I
mean
you
know
you
just
you
just
have
to
google.
You
know
I've
stopped.
You
know,
reading
the
bad
news,
but
but
you
know
clearly
something's
wrong.
I
mean
clearly
the
the
architecture
underneath
you
know.
All
of
these
systems
are
just
too
easy
to
hack.
I
K
Essentially,
what
we
see
is
securities
and
pay.
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
pure.
I
mean
it's
a
pure
market
thing.
I
mean
you
make
money
by
selling
products,
you
don't
make
money
by
saying
protection.
Protection
is
a
cost,
so
unless
there
is
either
some
regulation
in
the
style
of
the
faa
or
some
customer
movement
that
says
no,
no,
it
needs
to
be
secure.
I
don't
buy
it.
K
I
M
This
is,
this
is
a
homegrown
protocol.
It
went
through
the
applications
area,
it
did
not
go
to
the
security
area
10
years
ago,
and
I
was
one
of
the
few
people
who
said
like.
Why
are
we
doing
this
in
the
applications
area?
So
so
here's
a
here
is
a
technical
community,
that's
responsible
for
our
2.0
and
now
it's
being
rewritten
as
graph,
but
it's
kind
of
too
late
right.
The
markers
are
using
our.
N
N
I
mean
even
if
we
tried,
even
if
we
had
a
perfect
condition
and
a
perfect
world
in
other
ways,
we
still
have
some
issues,
because
it's
it's
just
hard,
but
the
other
reason
is
that
you
know.
Maybe
we
don't-
or
at
least
some
parties
don't
care
enough,
and
the
reason
is
that
they're
not
losing
their
data
they're,
losing
our
data
and
so
and
if
there's
no
no
harm
for
them.
N
N
N
K
Yeah,
I
see
the
question
in
the
in
the
chat
room
whether
the
security
is
going
to
be
centralized.
It
is
already
it
is
already
that's
exactly
the
the
description
that
first,
that
the
inning
and
jeff
were
saying
about
building
big
castles
and
and
basically
go
to
a
future
model
in
which
you
have
to
be
inside
facebook,
castles
or
inside
amazon's
castle,
or
something
like
that
to
be
protected.
So
that's
that,
but
there
is
something
else
I
mean.
K
It's
a
huge
issue,
but
it's
not
the
issue
of
the
day.
On
the
issue
of
the
day
of
the
internet
model,
there
is
one
part
of
the
internet
model
that
is
responsible
for
security
issue
and
that's
the
very
design
that
the
internet
is
designed
to.
Let
everybody
speak
to
everybody
I
mean
any
ip
address
can
send
a
packet
to
any
other
ip
address.
K
Any
email
client
can
send
a
packet
to
any
other
email
recipient
and-
and
we
wanted
that
that
was
very
much
the
design
goal.
But
if
you
let
every
email,
client
send
packet,
send
messages
to
every
other
email
recipient.
You
get
spam.
If
you
let
every
ip
address
send
how
many
packets
they
want
to
any
other
ip
address.
You
get
ddos
and
we
have
not
worked
out
the
defense
against
that.
I
I
think
that's
a
great
statement.
I
think
in
the
early
days
internet
succeeded
because
everyone
could
talk
to
anyone
else
as
they
wish
just
like
that.
Over
the
time
the
world
has
changed
and
therefore,
if
the
protocol
or
the
implementations
to
not
adapt,
that's
what
I
think
happened,
weren't,
I
don't
know
I
can
pronounce
your
name
right.
So
you
have
any
comments
to.
I.
I
I
K
K
N
N
We
could
deal
with
this
in
in
another
way.
I
I
yeah
personally,
I
think
the
jury
is
maybe
out
on
that
because
well
I
have
this
feeling
that
if
we
had
a
different
design,
then
we
would
be
just
one
indirection
away
from
a
different
attack
but
equally
disrupted,
but
yeah
we're
not
doing
a
future
internet
design
discussion
here.
So
we
can
take
that
offline.
I
Yeah
we're
not
doing
the
design
discussion
here.
I
think
that
basically,
it's
worth
just
to
take
a
retrospective
view
to
say
that
how
do
we
have
this
magic
solution?
How
the
life
might
have
been
different,
so
what
I
think
we
should
open
up
for
the
vlog
pretty
soon?
Let
me
just
ask
one
more
question
with
regard
to
the
this
panel,
the
I
think
that
in
the
early
discussion
in
the
panel
one
there's
a
discussion
about
the
wipe,
whatever
being
a
kind
of
one,
I
would
say
one
direction.
I
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
inventor
of
the
web
tim
berners-lee
actually
had
a
vision
that
the
web
would
be
kind
of
shared
contents.
Then
all
the
participants
would
be
able
to
edit
to
change
and
to
share
just
like
that.
When
the
web
load
out,
they
didn't
go
down
that
direction.
So
I'd
like
to
get
the
panelists
viewpoints
with
regard
to
tim,
vernon's
region,
how
come
the
web
development
didn't
really
go
down
the
direction
he
had
wanted,
but
we
had
to
come
to
the
entirely
different
direction.
O
So
obviously,
if
you
have
an
end-to-end
communication,
where
everyone
can
participate
and
collaborate
and
pitch
or
time
into
that's
nice
to
have,
but
I
guess
the
the
normal
model
or
work
mode
so
to
speak-
is
that
there's
just
a
few
people
writing
something
and
a
lot
of
people
reading
it?
So
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
tied
to
centralization
that
something
like
this
happened,
but
I
think
it's
more
of
a
kind
of
human
thing
that
has
also
applied
to
the
internet
as
a
medium.
K
Yeah
I
was
taking
those
because
I
it's
it's
a
problem.
I
mean
this
question
of.
Why
do
we
have
so
few
publishers
with
or
why
is
publishing
gated
and
in
my
mind,
that
goes
back
to
a
debate
in
the
90s
about
how
to
fund
the
web,
and
there
was
a
debate
at
the
time
and
basically
one
of
the
early
vision
was
something
like
why?
K
Okay?
Well,
there
is
one
vision,
you
you
don't
pay
the
publisher
at
all.
If
you
don't
pay
the
publisher
at
all
young
guys
that
get
to
publish
are
guys
had
published
something
because
either
they
want
to
become
famous
or
they
want
to
win
some
win
some
kind
of
election
or
something
like
that.
They
have
some
other
source
of
funding,
that's
limited.
K
K
M
That's
you
know,
and
the
same
for
the
mu
you,
you
wonder:
why
do
we
need
these
ancient
music
publishers
because
they
have
a
ton
of
lawyers
who
go
after
anybody
who
tries
to
infringe?
You
know
copyright,
so
you
know
that
begs
the
question
like
you
know:
why
don't
we
have
author,
specific
drm
technology
and
number
two?
Actually
it
may
not
even
be
needed
because
there's
not
platforms
such
as
you
know,
sub
stack
where,
if
you
like,
you
know
authors,
you
can
just
pay
them
using
patreon.
M
You
know
directly
whether
it's
you
know
two
dollars
a
month
or
five
dollars
a
month
right.
So
there
is,
in
fact
you
know
change
happening,
but
but
getting
back
to
your
original
question,
I
think
you
know
copyright
is
an
issue
and
for
people
on
substract
the
original
copyright
enforcement.
They
know
that
their
content
can
be
copied
by
anyone.
N
N
I
H
H
We
talk
about
security,
but
also,
if
you
look
at
the
complexity
of
protocols
that
we
have
standardized
collectively
as
a
community,
if
you
want
to
call
it
that
in
the
last
decade,
they've
gotten
increasingly
difficult
besides
one
even
something
as
simple
as
http.
Now
as
hundreds
of
pages
of
specifications,
you
have
to
implement
a
complete
stack
if
you
go
into
wpc
I
well,
we
see
this
in
the
browser
I'm
in
the
web
engine
market.
H
It's
essentially
no
longer
possible
for
an
individual
to
develop
a
web
browser
when
it's
just
not
maybe
in
their
lifetime,
but
certainly
not
keep
up
with
it.
This
is
now
only
true
for
my
big
organizations,
and
I'm
sure
this
is
my
number
of
quick
implementations,
for
example.
That
will
be
able
to
be
done,
will
probably
again
be
truthfully
in
that,
and
one
of
them
will
be
sponsored
by
google,
and
so
we
have
increasingly
created
incrementally
in
many
cases,
see
dns.
H
H
In
a
sense,
the
reason
that
google
say
has
so
much
impact
on
that
is
because
they
control
the
ground
market
is
that
if
they
were
just
in
the
advertising
business,
they
wouldn't
have
any
impact
on
quick
or
web
standards
and
that
they
do
because
they
control.
I
mean
80
of
the
browser
market
are
in
that,
and
so
they
can
drive
the
technical.
What
gets
implemented
in
that
and
whether
it's
good,
bad
or
indifferent.
K
I
L
L
It's
always
self-serving
to
create
this
great
new
project
product
and
make
it
excellent
for
everybody
to
use,
but
this
is
only
profitable
when
you're
doing
something
small
and
a
large
part
of
that
comes
from
you
know,
eventually,
it's
actually
more
profitable
to
to
prevent
competition
and
squash
others,
because
at
some
point,
there's
no
more
users
to
gain
and
only
users
to
lose.
And
we
see
this
a
lot
right.
L
What
are
the
bigger
carrots
that
we
can
use
to
encourage
standardization
to
continue
because
I'm
sure
you've
all
seen
that
you
know
gorillas
come
to
the
microphone
in
the
atf
and
kill
new
things
coming
up
because
it
doesn't,
you
know
it
doesn't
help
them.
Sometimes
the
gorillas
get
together
and
there's
a
whole
quandary
of
gorillas
saying
no,
because
they
don't
want.
You
know
new
things
to
come
along.
I
saw
that
actually
at
the
last
ietf
and
you
know
bringing
it
back
to
alicia
to
you
to
the
security
question
you
were
posing.
L
You
know
earlier
in
interoperable
security
is
even
harder
and
more
expensive
and
it's
safer
and
less
less
likely
of
a
lawsuit.
If
you
can
control
both
sides
right,
it's
very
dangerous
to
say,
to
open
your
service
and
have
somebody
else's
client
actually
be
you
know
the
cause
of
a
break
or
or
a
connection,
and
you
know,
walled,
secured
gardens-
are
built
without
doors
so
that
people
can't
get
out
not
so
that
people
can't
come
in
there's
a
dual
benefit.
There.
O
Yeah,
so
I
think
what
was
just
mentioned
regarding
interoperability,
and
also
that
kind
of
also
ties
to
data
migration
is
definitely
something
that
could
be
improved.
I
guess
so.
Okay
say
I
want
to
take
all
of
my
data
from
facebook
and
move
it
somewhere
else.
That
should
be
easily
possible,
but
I
don't
think
it
is
as
of
right
now.
So
that
is
definitely
something
to
consider.
K
Yeah
another
point
about
data
I
mean
henning
was
saying:
hey
it's
very
hard
to
do
those
implementations
one
of
the
hardest
part
when
doing
those
implementation
is
to
test
them
and
to
test
them.
You
need
to
basically
be
able
to
know
what
are
the
scenarios
that
you're
going
to
encounter
and
those
scenarios
are
effectively
data,
and
so
the
the
big
implementation,
like
all
the
the
google,
the
microsoft
app
etc,
have
lots
of
telemetry.
K
They
know
a
lot
about
the
environment,
but
I
mean
the
startup
competition
has
a
small
number
of
customers
and
very
little
data
and
in
terms
of
quick
data.
As
far
as
basically,
what's
the
type
of
packet
losses
that
I
might
expect,
what
is
the
distribution
of
mtus?
What
are
the
distribution
of
bandwidths
on
various
connections?
N
Yeah,
I
agree
and
wes
brought
up
a
very
good
good
point.
I
think
you
often
see
this
behavior,
where
sort
of
entrenched
large
entity
wants
to
prevent
more
competition
and-
and
that
could
happen
through
multiple
different
ways.
You
can
try
and
get
rid
of
the
competition.
You
can
prevent
things
from
happening
because
it's
too
complicated
to
implement
something
one
of
the
things
that
we
should
maybe
think
about
a
little
bit
more
than
we
have
because
we're
very
used
to
thinking
in
terms
of
standards
at
the
ietf.
N
So
some
of
us
are
getting
more
accustomed
with
open
source,
but
also
open
data
and
open
sort
of
learning
models
and
open.
Ai
training.
Stuff
might
be
important
and
you
often
get
this
situation
where
the
company
is
willing
to.
You
know:
let's
open
source,
the
competitions
crown
jewels,
but
my
crown
jewels.
A
I
feel
like
we
need
to
spend,
put
more
effort
on
helping
people
understand
and
use
and
consume
our
standards
because
oftentimes
once
you
know,
we
publish
the
rfc,
we
kind
of
wash
our
hands
say
our
efforts
done,
and
I
think
you
know
we
really
need
to
work
harder
at
making
our
standards
easier
to
deploy.
You
know,
use
to
adopt
and
use
correctly.
B
B
We
discussed
some
some
say
also
fairly
general
points
in
the
chat.
So,
for
example,
you
know,
is
there
actually
a
technical
or
architectural
angle
for
us
here,
or
is
this
really
just
economics,
and
I
mean
whatever
we
do.
We
can't
really,
you
know,
make
a
difference
unless
there
is
major
change
so
as
jeff
and
henning
suggested.
I
Yeah,
I
would
add
that
two
points
so
for
the
discussion.
Why
is
what
people
have
learned?
They
want
to
respect
over
the
last
two
and
a
half
hours.
The
second
thing
is
what
the
people's
thoughts
are.
If
we
want
to
continue
and
organize
a
series
of
workshops,
what
might
be
the
topics
for
the
next
one
and
the
one
after
the
next
one
so
see
if
people
like
to
share
their
understanding,
I
think
hunting
is
letting
up.
H
We
have
a
broad
sense
of
kind
of
a
technical
landscape,
and
this
is
everybody
knows
about
google
and
facebook,
but
the
problem
is
actually,
as
I
was
trying
to
point
I
was
trying
to
make,
is
a
broader
one.
This
is
not
just
about
google
and
facebook,
even
but
it's
really
dominant
in
being
brought
in
broad
swaths
of
industry
and
not
again.
This
is
browsers.
This
is
routers.
This
is
local
access.
This
is
email
operations.
This
is
cdns.
H
I
mean
we've
named
a
number
of
ones,
documenting
those
and
maybe
trying
to
understand
that
each
one
of
these
cases
I
as
to
why
that
happened
and
is
their
home
in
that
is
we're
home
in
the
concentration
of
a
cdn
market,
for
example,
and
which
takes
something
more
technical
in
that
and
the
second
one
is
even
if
we
can't
kind
of
solve
a
big
problem
so
to
say,
without
at
the
sub-political
level,
is
I
do
think
in
the
standards?
Never
you
know
there
are
things
that
we
can
do.
H
I
that
our
but
helpful
at
the
margin.
So,
for
example,
there's
been
some
emphasis
on
data
migration,
make
it
easier
for
people
to
take
the
data
out
of
dominant
platforms
that
that's
a
standards
problem.
There
are
issues
of
testing
and
complexity.
Are
that
are
barriers
to
entry
problems?
Can
we
address
those?
H
Unless
we
all
can
do
I
mean
something
convert
to
solar
there's
nothing
we
can
do,
but
there
are
smaller
things
that
aren't
going
to
solve
a
problem
by
itself,
but
they
are,
at
the
margins,
going
to
be
helpful
and
particularly
they're,
going
to
be
helpful
in
conjunction
with
other
efforts
and
maybe
focusing
on
those
might
be
a
way
forward
to
be
more
constructive
than
simply
saying.
Well,
we
just
have
to
change
anti-trust
law,
which
we
probably
do
but
and
that's
probably
not
our
specialty-
to
do
that.
D
You
know,
if
you
go
back
to
the
very
early
90s,
it
was
predominantly
a
bunch
of
researchers
and
the
research
community
openly
sharing
information,
and
there
was
a
large
if
you
will
public
sector
in
engagement
and
the
products
were
open.
So
the
work
advantaged
all
players
who
bothered
to
attend
he
bothered
to
participate.
D
It
did
not
necessarily
work
in
the
interest
of
any
particular
player.
Since
then,
the
ietf
has
become
an
industry
forum
and
it
has
adopted
the
position
and
stances
of
many
industry
forum.
It
works
to
the
benefit
of
the
players
in
a
different
way.
They
standardize
minimally
and
effectively
fold
in
the
real
aspects
of
innovation.
D
The
companies
that
take
the
risk
in
investing
in
innovation
wish
to
reap
the
rewards
exclusively
and
the
result
in
the
ietf
is
interesting
that
I
would
actually
see
the
irtg
as
the
crippled
lane.
You
know
distant
cousin,
whereas
the
bulk
of
the
activity
is
concentrated
on
further
privatizing
the
internet
and
further
centralizing.
D
D
If
you
really
want
to
change
the
way
we
operate,
I
think
you've
got
to
give
more
focus
and
more
emphasis
on
the
research
activities
of
the
ietf,
the
irtf,
and
making
those
processes
open
and
accessible
to
all,
because
once
you
allow
that
you
actually
allow
greater
degrees
of
folk
who
are
able
or
want
to
exploit
that
innovation
to
their
own
advantage
without
privatizing
the
innovation
itself.
So
you
know
we're
symptomatic
of
the
larger
malaise
here
is
where
I'm
going
thanks.
D
D
I
K
Yeah
I
mean
and
and
jeff
that
that's
something
we
observe
in
in
something
else.
When
we
see
the
participation,
we
lament
that
participation
is
focused
on
only
a
few
countries
which,
incidentally,
are
the
few
countries
with
big
industries
and
and
one
way
to
open
the
internet.
To
maintain
the
activities
to
many
more
people
will
be
indeed
to
encourage
much
more
open
research,
open
academic
participation.
P
I
was
first
a
little
bit
concerned
that
the
whole
exercise
would
become
kind
of
a
blame
shifting
game.
Oh
it's,
not
the
internet
itself
or
the
way
we
operate.
That
has
lead
to
that
situation
and
the
an
interesting
statement
for
fanning
was
here.
I
quote:
I
think
that
ojf
and
I
have
tried
to
make
a
point
that
almost
none
of
the
problems
are
primarily
technical
problems
solvable
by
us,
but
then
later
on,
he
points
out
that
well,
we
might
have
a
problem
with
the
large
standards
and
and
then
also
jeff
said.
Also.
P
We
have
changed
the
mode
the
itf
is
working,
so
I
think
definitely
there
are
things
in
that.
We
have
to
look
at
how
we
have
helped,
at
least
since
some
developments,
but
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
that
there
are,
I
guess,
technical
biases,
which
we
should
try
to
find,
and
I
try
to
point
out
one
of
the
online
always
always
online
model
being
one
another
might
be.
That
wasn't
mentioned.
P
J
You
know
facebook
and
its
competitors
whatever
they
are
right
or
how
to
build
any
of
these
systems
in
a
federated
way
right.
So
what
are
these?
The
simple
starting
points
to
you
know
to
explain
to
the
political
decision
makers
what
you
know
benefits
they
could
get
by.
You
know
doing
these
type
of
things
and
then
obviously
you
know
the
itf
and
other
standard
bodies
that
being
able
to
help
with.
J
B
B
B
B
If
they
need
an
an
internet
standard,
they
will
probably
bother
with
working
with
the
itf,
but
if
they
don't
it's
just
too
slow,
and
so
you
could
see
like
the
first
signals
of
that
say
when,
like
sdn
was
promoted
as
defying
standards
build
your
own
protocol
and-
and
this
is
what
happens
happening
in
say,
large
parts
of
the
networks
that
I
mean
the
really
big
players.
They
don't
need
internet
standards
to
get
their
data.
I
I
I
C
I
think
henning
mentioned
that
there's
a
lot
of
students
now
who
are
more
in
ai
and
ml
and
and
that
type
of
stuff
than
maybe
in
networking,
and
I
think
it's
because
a
lot
of
time
people
associate
networking
with
centralization
and
with
maybe
older
views
of
that.
You
know
like
a
lot
of
people
when
I
say
that
I
work
in
networking,
they
tell
me
oh
yeah
you're
one
of
these
telecom
people
and
it's
interesting,
because
I
never
worked
for
a
telecom
company
ever
in
my
life
and
but
the
question
is
autonomous
operations.
C
C
You
know,
manipulated
from
montreal,
where
you
won't
believe
this,
it's
easier
for
me
to
go
from
miami
from
here
than
to
go
to
northern
quebec,
because
it's
closer.
So
I
think
it's
been
something
that
we
forgot
about.
Decentralization
is
also
to
allow
systems
to
work
when
there
is
not
a
connectivity
to
the
central
system
that
things
can
work
on
their
own
and
communicate
on
their
own.
It's
not
just
that
they
need
to
be
autonomous,
but
they
need
to
create
their
own
sub
networks
in
an
autonomous
way.
C
My
second
point
is
that
we're
also
looking
at
green
networking
and
and
the
greening
of
the
planet-
and
you
know
people
mentioned
blockchains-
there's
a
huge
pushback
everywhere,
as
you
know,
against
blockchain
and
cryptocurrencies,
and
also
centralized
systems,
because
even
here
where
we
have
a
ton
of
cold
weather
locations,
people
do
not
want
to
have
another
server
farm
in
the
suburbic,
where
you
could
probably
take
advantage
of
distribution
to
create
more
green
solutions.
So
I
think
there's
two
things
that
were
not
mentioned
in
here
was
one:
the
the
idea
of
autonomous
operations
and
autonomous
self.
C
B
Decentralization
thanks
thanks
yeah,
so
that's
I
mean
yeah
a
good
question.
In
the
end,
I
think
my
people
really
have
different
opinions,
so
could
have
you
know
different
design
decision.
You
know
maybe
a
more
decentralized
trust
model,
not
the
pkis
we
have
today
so
could
that
have
led
to
a
different
outcome
so
in
or
in
other
words
you
know.
I
I
K
K
You
wanted
to
have
a
new
application.
You
get
effectively
a
new
network,
you
would
have
a
network
for
the
military
influence,
a
network
for
teletex,
a
network
for
video
network
bodies
network
for
that,
and
basically
the
goal
was
for
the
telecommunication
industry
and
technician
providers
to
capture
the
value
of
the
application
and
not
let
it
be
developed
by
the
actual
app
providers
of
content.
K
So
what
the
internet
did
was
effectively
break
that
and
and
of
course,
you
will
see
a
lot
of
industries
now
saying
hey.
I
am
a
telecommunication
provider.
I
would
like
to
capture
that
value
back.
I
mean
too
bad.
You
cannot
really
so
that
we
we
hear
that
clearly,
okay,
that
doesn't
mean
that
you
could
have
details,
but
I
mean
pretty
much
once
you
make
the
decision
that
every
talk
to
everybody
and
a
bit
is
a
beat.
You
get
the
current.
I
K
K
The
fact
things
like
that
I
mean
we
could
treat
that
as
problems
and
we
have
tried
to
treat
them
as
problems,
but
we
have
never
succeeded
what
we
observe
and
we
observe
that
for
identity.
We
have
solved
for
security.
We
observe
that
for
quality
of
service,
we
start
from
missing
anything
that
relies
on
communication
between
multiple
providers
of
independent
networks.
K
So
we
could
exa,
we
could
accept
that
I
mean
one
way
would
be
to
just
accept
that
say
it's
a
fact
of
life
and
then
build
the
rest
of
the
architecture
as
a
function
of
that,
but
we
have
always
tried
to
have
those
two
things.
The
same
way
look
at
the
amount
activity
that
is
dedicated
to
qs
on
the
internet,
which
has
no
chance
in
hell
of
ever
succeeding.
I
I
L
N
But
a
big
part
of
the
monetary
value
of
some
of
the
applications
actually
goes
to
other
other
places,
and
I
I
see
a
similarity
here
that
maybe
they
those
parties
need
to
be
bypassed
again
in
a
similar
fashion.
So
in
some
cases
there
is
a
reason
that
these
parties
are
part
of
the
food
chain
and
see
the
communications
and
so
forth,
but
it
doesn't
make
sense
in
all
cases.
N
We
have
been
stuck
with
this
communication
where
we
send
data
to
a
server
and
then
then
the
server
sent
it
to
to
our
friends,
and
it
wouldn't
necessarily
have
to
be
like
that.
So
there
are
some
technical
things
we
could
do
differently
and
not
everybody
wants
wants
that
change,
of
course,
but
I
think
we
could
potentially
do
it.
I
I
I
I
guess
this
will
take
time
for
for
us
to
digest
what
we
have
learned
today,
someone
subjected.
We
should
have
a
quarterly
workshop
like
this,
so
so
send
sender.
Send
all
your
questions,
comments,
suggestions
to
us,
then
we
will
think
about
it
and
discuss
with
the
community
then
get
back
to
you
on
what
would
be
the
most
appropriate
next
step.
I
B
Yeah
so
yeah
we
are
going
to
digest
and
summarize
this
workshop,
and
this
will
probably
take
a
few
days.
Please
bear
with
us
and
then
we're
looking
forward
to
yeah
follow-up
discussions
on
the
main
list
and
so
lisa
and
I
would
be
planning
for
a
meeting
at
the
july
itf
and
so
yeah.
Let's,
let's
find
a
good,
just
good
topic
and
then
good
formula
for
that
thanks,
everybody
who
supported
this
workshop
by
submitting
papers
participating
in
panels
and
the
discussion
here,
I
think,
was
really
good.