Layered Model of Regulation

OSI

"FIPS 146-1 adopted the Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP) which defines a common set of Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) protocols that enable systems developed by different vendors to interoperate and the users of different applications of those systems to exchange information. This change modifieds FIPS 146-1 by removing the requirement that Federal agencies specify GOSIP protocols when they acquire networking products and services and communications systems and services. This change references additional specifications that Federal agencies may use in acquiring data communications protocols. " FIPS 146-2, Profiles for Open Systems Internetworking Technologies (POSIT), NIST (May 15, 1995)

"In October 1993, NIST established the Federal Internetworking Requirements Panel to study and recommend policies on the use of networking standards by the Federal government. Based on feedback from industry, individual users, and international organizations on its draft report, the Panel submitted its final recommendations for public comment on May 1994. The Panel concluded that no single networking protocol suite meets the full range of government requirements for data internetworking. The Panel recommended that Federal government agencies select standards based on their interoperability needs, existing infrastructure, costs, marketplace products, and the degree to which the protocol has been adopted as a standard. As follow-up, NIST has proposed changes to the Federal Information Processing Standard that will remove the requirement specifying use of the Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP) protocols when agencies acquire networking and communication products. NIST currently is soliciting public comment on these proposed changes and will issue a final version in early 1995." - Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Progress Report p 11 September 1993-1994.

See Layered Model.

• FIPS 146-2, Profiles for Open Systems Internetworking Technologies (POSIT), NIST (May 15, 1995)
• Department of Commerce, National Information Infrastructure Progress Report p 11 September 1993-1994.
• OSI Protocols, CISCO
• OSI Reference Model

 

Papers

• Whitt, Richard S., A Deference to Protocol: Fashioning a Three-Dimensional Public Policy Framework for the Internet Era (September 14, 2012). 2012 TRPC.
• Information Economy Report 2006: Chapter 7 The Layered Internet Architecture: Governance Principles and Policies p. 275, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Nov. 2006)
• Sicker and Blumensaadt, "Misunderstanding the Layered Models," Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, pp. 44 - 111, Fall 2005
• "Beyond the Layered Model" by J. Scott Marcus , Silicon Flat Irons PPT
  • Marcus, J. Scott, Beyond Layers (May 9, 2006). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=901477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.901477  (“The Layered approach offers surprisingly little guidance to the regulator”).
• Layer architectures and regulation in telecommunications, A. M. Odlyzko. Pages 16-19 in New Millennium Research Council report, Free Ride: Deficiencies of the MCI 'Layers' Policy Model and the Need for Principles that Encourage Competition in the New IP World, July 2004. [preprint, text] [full NMRC report, PDF]
• Rick Whitt, MCI, A Horizontal Leap Forward: Formulating a New Communications Policy Framework Based on the Network Layers Model, 56 Fed. Comm. L.J. 587 (2004)
  • "To avoid the risk of further serious damage, policymakers must move away from the increasingly outmoded vertical “silos” that artificially separate communications-related services, networks, and industries from each other. Informed by the way that engineers create layered protocol models, and inspired by the analytical work of noted academics and technology experts, policymakers should adopt a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework founded on the Internet’s horizontal network layers. We must build our laws around the Internet, rather than the other way around. By tracking the architectural model of the Internet—with IP at the center—we can develop a powerful analytical tool providing granular market analysis within each layer, which in turn puts public policy on a more sure empirical footing."
  • A. M. Odlyzko, Layer architectures and regulation in telecommunications, p. 16-19 in New Millennium Research Council report, Free Ride: Deficiencies of the MCI 'Layers' Policy Model and the Need for Principles that Encourage Competition in the New IP World, July 2004. [preprint, text] [full NMRC report, PDF]
  • The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law, SSRN 7/18/03
• Craig McTaggert, A Layered Approach to Internet Legal Analysis, 48 MCGILL L.J. 571 (2003)
• Lawrence Solum and Minn Chung, The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law, SSRN 6/24/03
• Rob Frieden, Adjusting the Horizontal and Vertical in Telecommunications Regulation: A Comparison of the Traditional and a New Layered Approach, PSU 2/4/03
• The Potential Relevance to the United States of the European Union’s Newly Adopted Regulatory Framework for Telecommunications by J. Scott Marcus; July 2002. [ Text | Word | Acrobat | News Release ]
• Douglas C. Sicker, Further Defining a Layered Model for Telecommunications Policy, TPRC 2002 2002 Download: [Abstract] [PDF]
• Robert Cannon, Will the Real Internet Please Stand Up: A Quest to Define the Internet, TPRC 2002 Download: [HTML]
• Sicker & Mindel, "Refinements of a Layered Model For Telecommunications Policy," The Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Volume I, 2002
• Robert Cannon, The Legacy of the Computer Inquiries
• Frieden, Adjusting the Horizontal and Vertical in Telecommunications Regulation: A Comparison of the Traditional and a New Layered Approach, TPRC 9/18/02
• Sicker, Further Defining a Layered Model for Telecommunications Policy, TPRC 9/18/02
• Kevin Werbach, A Layered Model for Internet Policy Draft Sept 2000. Edventure| TPRC pdf
• The Computer Inquiry rules are set forth in the following White Paper: Where ISPs and Telephone Companies Compete:  A Guide to the Computer Inquiries, Enhanced Service Providers and Information Service Providers (March 2001) | Word | Published in Commlaw Conspectus and TPRC Proceedings 2000.
• Robert M Entman, Rapporteur, Transition to an IP Environment, The Aspen Institute (2001)
• Michael L. Katz, Thoughts on the Implication of Technological Change for Telecommunications Policy, The Aspen Institute (2001)
• Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, Broadband: Bringing Home the Bits, p. 182 (2002) (calling for logical layer unbundling).
• "A Paradigm Shift for the Stupid Network: Interconnecting with Legacy Networks in the Internet Era" by Timothy Denton and François Ménard, June 15, 2000 (293 KB)
• Timothy Wu, Application-Centered Internet Analysis, 85 VA. L. REV. 1163 (1999).
  • "This seemingly technical point matters because the Internet by its design allows - even encourages - great diversity above a few basic standards. The "end-to-end" design of the Internet delegates the power to code function to the point nearest to the user: the application. As a result, nearly everything that "counts" about the Internet from a legal standpoint is a function of the particular application at issue and not of the basic Internet protocols. Since applications actually drive Internet usage, they ought also drive legal analysis of the Internet, yielding nuanced rather than stereotyped results."
• J. Weinberg, "The Internet and Telecommunications Services, Universal  Service Mechanisms, Access Charges and Other Flotsam of the Regulatory  System," TPRC, 1998.
• Kevin Werbach, Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy, FCC Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper No. 29, p. 1 (March 1997) ("The Internet functions as a series of layers, as increasingly complex and specific components are superimposed on but independent from other components")
• Anthony M. Rutkowski, "Internet as Fractal: Technology, Architecture, and Evolution," in The Internet as Paradigm (Aspen Institute 1997).
• F. M. Bar, "Configuring the Telecommunications Infrastructure for the  Computer Age: The Economics of Network Control," Ph.D. thesis,  University  of California, Berkeley (1990).

Books

• Janet Abbate, Inventing the Internet (MIT Press 1999) Recounting how the layered model was adopted for ARPANET
  • P 66: "The initial division between subnet and host layers had simplified the work of the network's designers; now the [Network Control Center] NCC allowed the network's users to ignore much of the operational complexity of the subnet and to view the entire communications layer as a black box operated by Bolt, Beranek and Newman [BBN]. The NCC had become a managerial reinforcement of ARPA's layering scheme."
  • P 67: "Roberts suggested separating the host functions into two layers. The first, called the "host layer," would feature a general-purpose protocol to set up communications between a pair of hosts; the second, called the "application layer," would specify protocols for network applications such as remote login or file transfer. Having spearate host and application layers would simply the host protocol and lessen the burden on the host system's programmers. Also, eliminating the need for each application to duplicate the work of setting up a host-to-host connection would make it easier to create applications programs, thereby encouraging people to add to the pool of network resources. The ARPANet model now had three layers...." This model would be reflected in the Network Control Protocol (NCP)
• Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet, p. 147 (1996):
  • "Whatever structure they chose, they knew they wanted it to be as open, adaptable, and accessible to inventiveness as possible. The general view was that any protocol was a potential building block, and so the best approach was to define simple protocols, each limited in scope, with the expectation that any of them might someday be joined or modified in various unanticipated ways. The protocol design philosophy adopted by the NWG broke ground for what came to be widely accepted as the “layered” approach to protocols."