Dear Tony, You're right, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I really wish you could come on Sept. 28. I understand that you're not surprised that FCC is asserting jurisdiction over all ip-enabled services -- over every server, web page, email, and IM client. I think this will probably be fought out in court, just as the broadcast flag rulemaking is being challenged now. You're the expert, but my understanding is that FCC had a license-related hook that allowed it to work on the IM aspects of the AOL-TW merger. That is, its basis for jurisdiction was spectrum-related, and not based on the workings of AOL's IM client. I also believe that the IP Relay service is specifically linked to the public switched telephone network and North American numbering plan. Again, I could be wrong, but I believe the hook there is far closer to FCC's area of expertise and jurisdiction. And the fact that CALEA is being considered for IP-enabled services is disturbing to some senators. It's fine for FCC to say it has exclusive jurisdiction over IP-enabled services for the purposes of preempting state rules. But it doesn't necessarily follow that it can impose "social policies" on those services. (That's, by the way, the term that the FCC uses for these things; I am not making this up or being pejorative. Commr. Abernathy uses this term in her statement on the IP-enabled services rulemaking; it's also in para. 36 of the NPRM.) The NPRM makes clear that the FCC's ears and eyes are open for comments about all of this, and that's why I think it's useful to have a good deal of public discussion. When you say the following, I know I'm on the right track: >The increased "scale" of IP-enabled services produced infrastructure vulnerabilities, >specific service vulnerabilities, and monumental increases in criminal behavior - all of >which have resulted in increased legislative authority to multiple government agencies, >as well as the exercise of that authority. IP-enabled services have resulted in enormous economic growth. Why, think of the DNS -- it's an ip-enabled service. Careers have been made in companies that made their money from registering domain names. So, yes, there has been legislation in this area: I'll point to Sec. 230 of the CDA, which says "The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. . . . It is the policy of the United States - to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation...." I see "unfettered" as the Congressional policy. You see increased legislation to save us from crime. I'm not sure that Congress will be interested in giving power to the FCC to make rules about all IP-enabled services. But, again, we'll see. >Finally, You can't drive a truck on the highway without an >operator's and vehicle license, so what's the problem with requiring authentication for a >server and its responsible operator? We'll have to differ on this too. It's true that some networks may require authentication, and some end users may want to choose to participate in those networks. But I can walk down 14th St. without a driver's license on me, and try to talk to people. They don't have to listen to me, but what I'm doing isn't against the law. >Lastly, we shouldn't forget about the rest of the world. For the most part, these esoteric >debates about authority over IP-enabled services are largely US-centric - as well as a >legacy artifact arising from the serendipitous move of Steve Lukasik from DARPA's >Director to FCC's Chief Scientist in 1979. In the 1990s, Steve re-vectored his efforts to >help bring about the Cybercrime Treaty, among other things. Times change, things scale. I have the perhaps naive belief that the U.S. often leads the world in thinking about internet policy. It's important that we take the time to think this through. Best regards, Susan