Internet Society Frontpage

Events Membership
About the Internet Standards
Publications  Public Policy
About ISOC Education

About the Internet Society 

Become an ISOC Member

Board of Trustees

2006 Board Elections

Candidate Forum

Q4: Open initiatives

What is your vision about potential participation of ISOC and official support to open initiatives – free/open source software, legislation for open access and open content?

This entry was posted by the ISOC Elections Committee on Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 at 3:35 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 or Atom 1.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Q4: Open initiatives”

  1. Comment by: Bill St.Arnaud   
    March 30th, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    My sense is that although open initiatives are important they would be a distraction from the very important issues facing ISOC board, executive and staff.

    My suggestion that ISOC expand its public policy role and form working committees to advise governments on SPAM legislation (working closely with IETF on the technical aspects), phishing, wire tapping, broadband deployment, etc etc

    I think ISOC could play an important leadership role within IGF and other bodies demonstrating that we are not against governance etc – but that there are more pragmatic and practical solutions to many of the perceived problems that affect the Internet

  2. Comment by: Franck   
    March 30th, 2006 at 10:04 pm

    There are so many similarities in the technical approaches between the Internet protocols and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). It is a little bit more than open standards, but to allow all to participate and develop end to end applications.

    I think ISOC should share experience with the FOSS movement. Internet really allowed FOSS to expand to what it is today. However ISOC should remain vendor neutral while recommending systems which allow broad participation and should keep rather focused on Internet issues.

    At Chapter level, local issues may be different and chapters should be able to have expanded agendas to be able to tackle local issues important for local development while remaining fair and neutral. For instance in the Pacific Islands Chapter (www.picisoc.org) we also talk about Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) in general as it matters to our membership.

  3. Comment by: Artur Serra   
    March 31st, 2006 at 3:41 am

    Our experience in collaboration with other open initiatives like FOSS organizations is positive. We share a common vision about open networks and systems.

    This alliance is specially important in emerging countries where open models can help to develop a local technological community.

    Nevertheless, we should indicate that open models are only the starting point of an IT innovation system. Usually, they have emerged inside of public R&D institutions and projects (universities,…). The next step is usually a commercialization of the products and services. The final result is a mature system combining both, open initiatives with a propietary ones.

  4. Comment by: Richard Bell   
    April 6th, 2006 at 8:17 am

    The economic argument for open initiatives is that they drive innovation and ultimately result in a fully competitive outcome where vendors are not able to generate economic profits (or rents). The problem with simply embracing one camp to the exclusion of others is that one mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

    ISOC should support open source initiatives as it should any other initiatives that foster the development of the internet for the betterment of all. However it should do so neutrally without falling into any one camp to the exclusion of others.

  5. Comment by: David Isenberg   
    April 16th, 2006 at 9:07 am

    Open software and content and services and applications are critical to an open Internet. Proprietary information is important too, but there must be both. The pendulum of history is swinging too far towards “closed.” The emergence of deep packet inspection and digital rights management technologies provides means for further closing. ISOC should take an active role to ensure that the Internet remains open to non-proprietary information technologies of all kinds.

  6. Comment by: Spencer Dawkins   
    April 24th, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    At least in the short run, ISOC’s greatest contribution to the free/open source software community will be getting the IETF IPR and copyright procedures down so that they don’t change every year. That’s a problem.

    I would really like to see ISOC speaking clearly on when it’s OK to fork a protocol specification stream (how important is “standardization” for any given protocol?).

    Beyond that – I’d like to see ISOC taking the lead in helping engineers “do the right thing” in IPR disclosure. I’m afraid this may take some “stick”, not just “carrots” – for example, auditing a sample of IPR disclosures to understand whether people are waiting to disclose IPR.

    One concern for many new IETF participants is a nagging suspicion about whether competing participants really disclose IPR, or whether they disclose with a lag after submitting a draft. I’d like to tell them “these concerns aren’t realistic, because 80 percent of disclosures seem to happen within a month of 00 draft submission”, or whatever the numbers are, but I can’t say that today – we just don’t know.

    I don’t support required GPL licensing across the board in IETF – decisions like this are best left to specific working groups.

  7. Comment by: Yan Baoping   
    April 27th, 2006 at 8:11 pm

    ISOC should contribute more in the field of public policy development while cooperate well with ICANN and IETF along with a refined definition of each parties’ role and responsibility. ISOC should focus on Internet governance issues like fight spam and cyber squatting.

    Open source software contributed considerably in the development of computer software. Internet as the major means of distributing and sharing open source software deserve more attention. ISOC should one: encourage and support the development of open source software; two: support nations fight against activities that violate intellectual property rights such as illegal software distribution and piracy.