In message <8da1853ce466b041b104c1caee00b3748fa4e...@chaxch01.corp.arin.net>, John Curran writes: > On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > > > Indeed, but I have an even better example of how that's already done, > that > > is probably pertinent. > > > > > The National Electric Code is assimilated law now, I think, in every > > state in the US. It is promulgated by the National Fire Protection > > Association, which is a standards organization originally started by > > insurors to reduce their exposure and expenses; by professional > consensus, > > they have become, effectively, a lawmaking body. > > > > So they're not the government, they're subject-matter experts, > technically > > competent to have opinions, and their opinions are assimilated into > > controlling law. > > Indeed... a perfect example of industry self-regulation supplemented by > a mandatory legal framework referencing the best practice documents. > > > Is BCP38 *not* well enough though out even for large and medium sized > > carriers to adopt as contractual language, ... > > You're back to discussing voluntary mechanisms in the above, but > your example is a case where compliance is due to legislation at > both federal and state levels. > > > much less for FCC or someone to > > impose upon them? If so, we should work on it further. > > Umm... How many North American ISP's/datacenters/web hosting firms were > aware of the BCP 38 development as it was on-going, and participated in > some manner in its review? The IETF is a wonderful organization, but it > is not exactly overflowing with representation from the service provider > community. Also, given that you really need these practices picked up > on a global basis, repeat the above question with "Global" rather than > North American...
I'd say enough were aware. :-) 8. Acknowledgments The North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) [5] group as a whole deserves special credit for openly discussing these issues and actively seeking possible solutions. Also, thanks to Justin Newton [Priori Networks] and Steve Bielagus [IronBridge Networks]. for their comments and contributions. > If you actually want to see certain technical practices made mandatory > for Internet service providers globally, then you need a development > process for those practices which fairly robust to insure that the > practices are equally germane and reasonable to many different service > providers in many different parts of the world. It's actually relatively > easy to get governments to require compliance with accepted technical > practices for the Internet, the problem has been we've never taken the > effort to produce best practices with sufficient rigor than any given > government can know that it has the necessary backing (of many of the > service providers in its domain) needed to actually require compliance. > > (With regard to the FCC, there is some question as to whether or not > their mandate would allow establishing required practices for ISPs... > To the extent that VoIP traffic is being carried, this is far more > likely to be possible, and hence folks should be aware of various > activities such as the CSRIC "Communications Security, Reliability > and Interoperability Council", which develops recommendations that > could effectively become requirements on Internet Service Providers > in some contexts. > <http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-security-reliability-and-i > nteroperability-council-iii> > Noe that the problem with this sort of approach is that having dozens > of countries all developing their own specific technical best practices > is most likely to cumulatively interact in ways impossible to comply > with... Hence, the need for clear global technical best practices, > through which countries with a particular desire to "improve the > state of the Internet" can channel their legislative desires...) > > FYI, > /John -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
