Hi Owen, Thanks for the offer, but I'm afraid that my own research is probably quite a bit different than any work that KC presented at Asilomar, or anywhere else actually. KC hired me at the point when she concluded that most if not all major efforts to sustain and enhance the Internet were blocked not by problems of technology, but rather by problems that she characterized as EOT (economics, ownership, and trust). At that time (c. 2004) I was just starting to present some findings suggesting that usage patterns for Internet protocol resources, which constitute the units of measurement for almost all Internet topology and graph theoretic research, are closely correlated with, and can be substantially explained by the legal/regulatory environment and market structure of the national jurisdictions that are associated with the "ultimate beneficial user" (UBU) of those resources (note: UBU is a term of convenience, but the closest match I know of given the fact that IP number resources are not property, and thus not "owned").
It took a couple more years of (mostly unrelated) research before it dawned on me that that perceived correlation between IP number resource usage and the underlying material and institutional conditions was itself an artifact of policies that emerged organically within the Internet technical community (note: policies which are now administered by my clients, the RIRs). The goal of those policies was/is to conserve both the finite protocol number resource pools themselves, and also to preserve a relatively stable global routing environment, i.e., one in which the growth in demand for Internet routing services remained roughly aligned with the "supply" of routing service carrying capacity that can be provisioned given current technology. In other words, the policies were designed to extend the useful lifetime of the current TCP/IP based Internet by postponing the day when additional number resources or routing system carry capacity becomes unavailable -- either because it's all 100% productively deployed, or whatever remains is being hoarded and thus rendered unavailable for use, or because the system has collapsed prematurely due to excessive, inefficient loading. It turns out that that particular combination of causes and manifestations of systemic risks, and strategies for managing them is isomorphic with certain fundamental problems and responses that have been a recurring phenomenon in another, completely unrelated domain -- i.e., the domain of monetary instruments and financial flows. In fact the policy environment that I described, and the ratio of protocol resources to underlying inputs that it is designed to sustain is a mirror image of the most basic "policy rule" used by monetary system decision makers (central bankers et al.), which is usually called the "Quantity Theory of Money." That "aha" moment was followed by many many others, to the point that I now believe that I can make a very strong case that the two systems -- Internet addressing and routing vs. monetary instruments and financial flows -- are in fact completely isomorphic at every level. They are both just variant implementations of the more general class of "liquidity mechanisms," with the particulars of each largely shaped by one critical difference in their deployment/usage domains: unlike the inherently physical, time-bound, and hence "rival" goods and services of the material world, the packetized goods and services of the Internet are inherently nonrival. In the past, the fact that both of these domains are basically "black boxes" to most people has made it difficult to engage a broad audience on this subject and it's (I believe) major implications. Even among leading experts in one or the other field, relative ignorance of the other domain coupled with a reflexive disbelief that their own domain might not be sui generis has often made talks on this subject "difficult." That said, if you still think that this subject would be of interest to an audience at the Complex, I'd be happy to do a talk when time and circumstances permit. But I will also not be offended if you need a lot of time to think it over ;-) Regards, TV On Feb 14, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: > I had missed the connection with KC Claffy. I followed her work to map the > internet while I was at Sun and heard a brilliant presentation she gave, I > think at the Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop a while back. > > Very good stuff! Love to hear more about the project(s) especially how you > talked anyone into funding it! Very pioneering work. > > The sfcomplex.org could use a talk on that sort of graph discovery and > rendering if you have the time for it. > > -- Owen > > > On Feb 14, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Tom Vest wrote: > >> Thanks Stephen. I took no offense -- just wanted to announce my presence >> on-list, and then to indulge in a little crotchetiness of my own ;-) >> >> That said, but you should be careful what you wish for. >> I've already visited Santa Fe 3-4x now, the first few times to attend >> Swarm-related conferences at SFI while I was in grad school (c. 1995-1998). >> Given the chance, I tend to find excuses to come! >> >> Full disclosure: I no longer have any contractual relationship with CAIDA. I >> was a fellow/advisor on economic and policy matter that affect Internet >> protocol development, deployment, and usage from 2005~2007, and I continue >> to work with CAIDA Director/PI KC Claffy less formally but fairly regularly >> ever since. In fact KC and I were together on my last visit to Santa Fe in >> October 2007. We were invited up to chat with some of the SFI research staff >> and fellows who were interested in the possible uses of Internet topology >> and flow time series measurements to explore/exemplify some broader insights >> about self-organizing systems that they were working on. I currently work as >> a consultant, mostly to the technical coordination institutions that >> administer Internet protocol number resources (i.e., the Regional Internet >> Registries, or RIRs). >> >> I don't think that there was much follow-up between SFI and CAIDA after that >> meeting, but then at that time my own research of possible relevance was not >> yet particularly well developed. >> That has changed in the interim, perhaps to the point that it would merit a >> talk. I'll follow up with a few details off-list. >> >> Regards all, >> >> TV >> http://www.caida.org/home/staff/tvest/ >> http://www.ripe.net/info/ncc/staff/science_grp.html >> >> >> On Feb 13, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote: >> >>> Hello Tom, >>> >>> Welcome to Friam! Don't mind the occasional squawk from the ParrotFarm - >>> the birds get crotchety if we forget to clean the cages. :-) >>> >>> Yes, you'll find fans of Brian Arthur-speak here. In particular, I think >>> his ideas of "Deep Craft" wrt innovation <http://tinyurl.com/yfud2p3> >>> emerging in some places and not others is interesting. I would argue >>> Northern New Mexico has a level of deep craft in simulation and related >>> topics like optimization and visualization that allows practitioners to >>> exchange ideas quickly with common vocabularies (though one could argue >>> about how deep it goes). >>> >>> BTW, I enjoy the tools and visualizations coming out of Caida! If you're >>> out in Santa Fe, please consider giving a brownbag talk. >>> >>> -Stephen >>> >>> >>> --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... >>> [email protected] >>> (m) 505.577.5828 (o) 505.995.0206 >>> redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ ambientpixel.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Tom Vest wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sheesh, what a bunch of academic phraseology! >>>>> • functional modularization >>>>> • combinatorial evolution >>>>> • both "top-down" as well as "bottom-up" initiative [...] indispensable >>>>> IM(Not So)HO, America at large has been sufficiently dumbed down by the >>>>> brutal combination of a mediocre educational system, an academic peer >>>>> review system that rigidly refuses to think outside the box, pay-for-play >>>>> politics, fundamentalist christian & christian wannabe religions, >>>>> McDonalds lardburgers, and short-sighted Wall Street quants that >>>>> innovation is now solidly a thing of the past, and will probably remain >>>>> so for a very long time. >>>>> >>>>> --Doug >>>> >>>> Actually, we said approximately the same thing, or rather your list >>>> included a small subset of the things I was trying to cover with my >>>> academic phraseology. >>>> No question that your phraseology is much more colorful! Not so easy to >>>> model however. >>>> >>>> I only chimed in (and subscribed) because I'm trying to model some related >>>> problems in my own field. >>>> I saw the terms "modeling" and "applied complexity" on the group page -- >>>> but perhaps I misinterpreted the sense in which one or more of those terms >>>> is being used... >>>> >>>> In any case, please excuse the intrusion. >>>> >>>> TV >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Tom Vest <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In a recent washingtonpost.com article named >>>>>> "Erasing our innovation deficit" ( http://bit.ly/cG6vGW ) >>>>>> Eric Schmidt said >>>>>> >>>>>> "We have been world leaders in [technological] innovation for >>>>>> generations. It has driven our economy, employment growth and our rising >>>>>> prosperity. >>>>>> [..] We can no longer rely on the top-down approach of the 20th century, >>>>>> when big investments in the military and NASA spun off to the wider >>>>>> economy." >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you agree? What kind of approach does the >>>>>> USA need to return to old strength? >>>>>> >>>>>> -J. >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised that none of the current/former SFIers on the list have >>>>> mentioned Brian Arthur's recent pitch for "combinatorial evolution" as >>>>> the engine of innovation. >>>>> As I read it, Brian's argument is that innovation is an epiphenomenon >>>>> arising from: >>>>> >>>>> -- the functional modularization of many different kinds of >>>>> technologies*, plus >>>>> -- the standardization of "open" interfaces enabling those functional >>>>> components or modules to be combined in different ways, plus >>>>> -- an environment that enables and incentivizes widespread experimental >>>>> combination of different technologies, e.g., by occasionally rewarding >>>>> those who come up with novel, useful combinations. >>>>> >>>>> *These could be of the "hard" or "soft" variety, e.g., chip design or >>>>> double-entry bookkeeping. >>>>> >>>>> So, on this account it would seem that both "top-down" as well as >>>>> "bottom-up" initiative is indispensable. >>>>> Bottom-up activities are the proximate cause and primary engine driving >>>>> innovation. >>>>> However, the size of that engine (e.g., the share of the total population >>>>> capable of participating constrictively in the combinatorial search) >>>>> depends substantially on the existence, scope, and >>>>> openness/interoperability of those modules and the standardized >>>>> interfaces between them. Unfortunately, by their very definition >>>>> "standards" are a top-down phenomenon -- both because they are never >>>>> adopted with unanimous consent (but must be appx. universally binding >>>>> with a domain in order to work in that domain), and because they must >>>>> remain relatively stable over time, which means that for everyone that >>>>> comes along after the moment of standardization, they may feel like an >>>>> "unjust," arbitrary imposition. >>>>> >>>>> In 2002, a quartet of prominent Internet standards developers published a >>>>> paper called "Tussle in Cyberspace" (link below), which made a broadly >>>>> similar argument about how the Internet has evolved. However, while >>>>> mechanisms that the Tussle authors describe are broadly similar, the tone >>>>> seems quite different, to me at least. The earlier paper seemed to be >>>>> (obliquely) engaging a topical issues that was just emerging around that >>>>> time -- i.e., the aspirations of some dominant Internet service providers >>>>> to subtly alter and/or partially vacate some of the standards that make >>>>> the Internet "open" and thus had fostered the Internet's rapid growth up >>>>> to that time (note: today the issue is most commonly called "net >>>>> neutrality"). In that context, the Tussle paper seems to lean ever so >>>>> slightly past the domain of observation and Darwinian theory >>>>> construction, in the general direction of advocating the tussle process >>>>> and the embrace of whatever outcomes it yields, ala "social darwinism." >>>>> >>>>> In any case, I think that any present US deficit in innovation can >>>>> probably be chalked up, at least in part, to the ongoing progressive >>>>> deviation from our most recent moment of optimal balance between those >>>>> "top down" and "bottom up" forces. Some of the biggest recent winners in >>>>> the innovation game -- i.e., those who benefited most from the latest >>>>> round of technical standardization -- have started exert their own >>>>> top-down authority in ways that advance their own private interests, but >>>>> which collaterally degrade the environment for future/distributed >>>>> innovation... >>>>> >>>>> (The question resonates for me because of the looming inflection point in >>>>> Internet protocol standards associated with the depletion of the IPv4 >>>>> address pool, which happens to be the stuff of my day job) >>>>> >>>>> My own 0.02, +/- >>>>> >>>>> Tom Vest >>>>> >>>>> "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet" >>>>> http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle2002.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Doug Roberts >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office >>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
