Media & Entertainment
Structuring Convergence
Paid Content

Information
Knowledge Management

Strategy
Time Based Competition
The "Vision" Thing

Internet
The Net Era
The Internet - Some Perspectives
Chat Society
Net Governance

Branding
Brand Positioning
Brand Personality
Brand Extension

Written: 1998

If you're a Net buff, you probably know about the way the Net is organized - through the Internet Society (ISOC); the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF); the Internet Assigned Naming Authority (IANA) the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Lets look at some of the curious and some downright amazing things about the way the Net is run.

What never fails to startle me is that the Net is run by consensus, by voluntary people and bodies, at a global level. It wouldn't be incorrect to say that the Internet is the world's greatest example of global co-operation. Comfortably transcending International law and individual country politics, the Internet straddles the world like no other human endeavour. And yet, what are the means the Net has to enforce its dictums and decrees? None whatsoever. The IETF defines the Net as "The Internet, a loosely-organized international collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks, supports host-to-host communication through voluntary adherence to open protocols and procedures defined by Internet Standards."

What are the implications of the voluntary and practice driven nature of the Net? First, a rule of the intelligent - a clear meritocracy. These are complex systems devised for the intelligent by the intelligent. It takes a fair amount of maturity to be governed by a system or a set of laws that are not shoved down ones throat or held like the sword of damocles above our heads. Second, adoption of practices that work, across the globe. Nobody does things because "somebody said so". Clearly each idea or entity is evaluated on its own merit. So most things that are adopted as standards across the world have passed the scrutiny of many great minds and can be therefore expected to be much more robust. Third, because any decision to follow a standard, depends on the follower, there is higher autonomy and accountability all around. Once a standard is adopted, it does not change. We all know how the constitution of India is mutilated by the blade of whimsical changes.

Take a minute to compare the Internet's growth with that of the Pharma Industry - a fundamental philosophical difference exists between the two. Lets look at 2 specific examples. If a company like Pfizer is expected to develop and market a drug for arthritis cure, it will cost them in the range of $300 million. This will then need to be recovered through tightly managed patents and IP laws. Over a period of 7 to 14 years depending on the country, the Pfizer will then recover this investment in artificial quasi-monopolistic markets. Clearly the customer will end up paying real monopolistic prices. Moreover, because of the insularity of the organisations, the technology and the science will move that much slower. Compare this to the creation of, say, Netscape creating a browser to surf the World Wide Web. What does Netscape do? It promptly allows the whole world into its laboratory, to muck around with the source code, to tinker and to improve. Likewise the case with Java and Linux. As also HTML itself. Their creators wished away largish fortunes in favour of making the technology available for the greatest common good. Here is where the Internet makes a philosophical leap ahead of most other human activities. On the Internet you don't have to look very far to see examples of people putting the common good before their own fortunes. Who knows, had the pharma companies followed this path a few decades ago, we may have had much poorer pharma companies but also much less illness on the planet.

The Internet's standards setting process provides an inkling of the degree of difficulty of the task. The process of creating an Internet Standard involves creation of a new technological innovation, its development and iteration by the Internet community and large and subsequent adoption as a standard by the appropriate body. Once adopted it gets published as per guidelines. Or as RFC's (Request For Comments). However, it is not easy to create a standard in the outreaches of technological innovation where few people understand what it is and does. The exact implication of a particular technology is extremely difficult prior to its widespread usage and for that widespread usage, it needs to be a standard. Hence the chicken and egg. There are many people and groups who may be affected and this can complicate the considerations for adoption. At the same time, all the interested and affected sets of people need to be kept in the reckoning, for the standard to enjoy widespread acceptance. The processes followed by the Net aim to reflect proven practice, flexibility, fairness, openness and objectivity. The fact that in the Net has over 2500 RFC's is indicative of the fact that the system seems to work.

The Internet is also prone to lapsing into quirky humour. The kind that makes geeks laugh in the middle of the night while staring at their monitors. And I'm not talking about jokes that get mailed, or humour lists. I'm talking about things like RFC 1118 which is an "Informational RFC" and is titled "Hitchhikers Guide to the Internet". Another dark twist is provided by the fact that a Request For Comment is typically something that has been commented and iterated and is now an adopted guideline.

"Net net", as they say, democracy has run its course. One may even go to the point of arguing that democracy as a political system is archaic? It's over two hundred years old. It is creaking at the tired joints and bursting at its inefficient seams. It is one of the oldest systems that exist today. Clearly the political system needs an overhaul. The question is, can the Internet model provide an alternative?