RFC 9518 — What can Internet standards do about centralization?

By on 14 Jun 2024

Category: Tech matters

Tags: , , ,


Blog home

It’s no secret that most people have been increasingly concerned about Internet centralization over the last decade or so. Having one party (or a small number of them) with a chokehold over any important part of the Internet is counter to its nature. As a ‘network of networks’, the Internet is about fostering relationships between peers, not allowing power to accrue to a few.

As I’ve discussed previously, Internet standards bodies like the IETF and W3C can be seen as a kind of regulator, in that they constrain the behaviour of others. So it’s natural to wonder whether they can help avoid or mitigate Internet centralization.

I started drafting a document that explored these issues when I was a member of the Internet Architecture Board. That eventually became draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization, which became an Independent Stream RFC in December 2023.

But it was a long journey. I started this work optimistic that standards could make a difference, in part because Internet standards bodies are (among many things) communities of people who are deeply invested in the success of the Internet, with a set of shared end user-focused values.

That optimism was quickly tempered. After digging into the mechanisms that we have available, the way that the markets work, and the incentives for the various actors, it became apparent that it was unrealistic to expect that standards documents — which, of course, don’t have any intrinsic power or authority if no one implements them — are up to the task of controlling centralization.

Furthermore, centralization is inherently difficult to eradicate. While you can reduce or remove some forms of it, it has a habit of popping up elsewhere.

That doesn’t mean that standards bodies should ignore centralization, or that there isn’t anything they can do to improve the state of the world regarding it (the RFC explores several). Rather, we should not expect standards to be sufficient to effectively address it on their own.

You can read the RFC for the full details. It covers what centralization is, how it can be both beneficial and harmful, the decentralization strategies we typically use to control it, and finally what Internet standards bodies can do.

One final note: I’d be much less satisfied with the result if I hadn’t had the excellent reviews that Eliot Lear (the Independent Submissions Editor) sourced from Geoff Huston and Milton Mueller. Many thanks to them and everyone else who contributed.

Rate this article

The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of APNIC. Please note a Code of Conduct applies to this blog.


  1. Robin Smith

    Isn’t “constraining the behaviour of others” its own form of centralisation?

    The ideology of anarchism has the same question to answer still. Eventually even that doctrine ends up as a centralised social organisation. But who would know if it had power thanks to the iron law of oligarchy.

    What is really meant by centralisation, is monopoly power. The profits of monopoly being an economic rent.

    So if you want to protect against it you have to socialise the rents. Which today across the world have been privatised or ‘enclosed’. That is, confiscate it for revenue. And ideally abolish all taxation to hypothecate in a virtuous circle.

    Then there is no behaviour needing constraint. Because it’s not profitable to take what ibe has not earned as profit.

  2. Edward Lewis

    An Internet operator said to me “complexity causes centralization”. Standards bodies are contributing to service centralization by producing standards that only a few experts can competently operate. Perhaps economies-of-scale is the chief driver of centralization, but if the technology requires deep expertise then it too is a contributor.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *