Subject: [arch-d] Comments on draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization: Intermediation

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 21:33:09 -0500

Dear all,

I think the comments on intermediaries in
draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization need some more work.
It's not clear to me why intermediation should be considered to lead
to centralization. Often in examples I've seen the intermediation is
not a network but a mediator between the two ends. This can be
centralizing due to two sided market dynamics or decentralizing due to
ready access to many intermediates and a reduction in trust invested
in an endpoint.

>From a network perspective all devices transporting packets are
intermediaries between the hosts that ultimately generate them. While
encryption does reduce the possible intervention of these boxes,
there's quite a few cases where they do do things, and even without
centralization manage to undercut permissionless innovation.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 18:40:45 +1100

Hi Watson,

> On 11 Dec 2021, at 1:33 pm, Watson Ladd <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 

I may have been infected by a legal/policy perspective that assumes a much broader definition of 'intermediation' -- will try to clarify to get everyone on the same page.

Thanks,

P.S. I'm happy to take feedback and see discussion on the arch-discuss list, but it's not adopted anywhere yet, so I'll let the moderators decide when to shoo things off somewhere else (e.g. the draft's issues list). 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/