Download pdf - Four Scenarios for Future Evolution of the Internet

Date of publication: 8 December 2011

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2011.943306

© ISTOCK

BORKA JERMAN-BLAŽIC

1932-4529/11/$26.00©2011IEEEIEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | WINTER 2011 | 39

40 | IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | WINTER 2011

The Internet has trans-formed the lives of bil-lions of people in areas as diverse as democra-cy, education, health-

care, entertainment, commerce, fi nance, and civil infrastructure. It has become the 21st century’s fundamental societal infrastruc-ture, comparable to the railways of the 1800s and the roadways of the 1900s. The Internet and its associated services have helped transform the world economy and society, catalyzing new forms of communication, collaboration, cre-ativity, and innovation. The Inter-net deeply affects human commu-nication, and the way humans deal with information and knowledge.

Statistics indicate that the Inter-net is still growing at exponential rates. According to the last report of the Task Force of the European Commission DG INFSO, Internet connectivity is expanding rapidly in geographical distribution and number of users [1]. Currently there are about 1.6 billion Internet users worldwide (from 360 million in 2000) and 4 billion mobile us-ers (from 2.7 billion in 2006); 570 million Internet-enabled handheld devices are in use. The number of people who use mobile phones for web surfi ng has doubled since 2006. It is expected that in 2012 mobile and wireless users will out-number wired ones. In parallel with user growth, stored information is growing as well. In 1998, Google indexed 26 million web-pages; in 2009 it indexed 1 trillion. There are 400 million web pages and 55 trillion links between these web pages. The Web is processing 100 billion clicks per day, and 2 million emails and 1 million instant mes-sages per second. Video traffi c over the Internet is growing by 60% ev-ery year and will be multiplied by 1000 over the next 5 to 8 years. Web 2.0 and social networks are attracting more than 125 million regular users within just 5 years of existence. The Internet is an indis-

pensable part of most businesses with many business processes hav-ing been signifi cantly automated by Internet technologies.

The current Internet is the most important infrastructure of the dig-ital society. It is also adapting itself with ad hoc technical solutions that help to meet the demands of users, devices, applications, and services, enabling human activities that were not foreseen in the Internet’s origi-nal design.

The networking community is aware of the rising number of ad hoc solutions to technical prob-lems, and has come to agree that these problems are of an architec-tural nature. A general redesign may be needed. The Internet com-munity understands that the design of the “Future Internet” should enable the smooth evolution of the current IP network and should rely on the current practice of patches to overcome existing problems. It is also commonly understood that the structural and architectural prob-lems of the current Internet cannot be solved without understanding how the Internet interacts with the rest of the world, including humans and machines.

This article is based on work within the EU FP7 project Evolving Future Internet for European Lead-ership (EIFFEL) [2]. The project organizes semi-annual think-tank meetings where experts from all parts of the world debate the future of the Internet. Most of the identi-fi ed agreements and disagreements regarding major problems of the current Internet are provided at the FIPEDIA site [3] maintained by the EIFFEL core team. This article introduces major fi ndings that are presented in detail in the EIFFEL white papers on the future of the Internet.

Network Community DebateThe Internet network in use today is still based on the best-effort, point-to-point service model, well suited to applications between two

endpoints that can tolerate occa-sional performance degradation. However, many newer applications do not easily tolerate performance degradation, and many applica-tions involve multiple endpoints. This complicates any new design for the Internet. There are several major initiatives considering dif-ferent approaches to meet these challenges.

In the U.S., the National Science Foundation (NSF) NetS research program FIND [4] is the major long-term initiative. FIND encour-ages “clean slate process” research proposals in the broad area of net-work architecture, principles, and design of the Future Internet. The philosophy of the program is to en-able a network design that is free from the current collective mindset about the constraints of the net-work. The NSF is considering the Network Science and Engineering Committee (NetSE) report pub-lished in mid-2009 [5], which rec-ommends further R&D activities. GENI [6], another U.S. program, focused on a fl exible and recon-fi gurable network of “test-bed” ex-perimental facilities and projects.

The EU through the FP7 pro-gram funds a wide range of research activities that relate to the Future Internet. A complete, up-to-date snapshot of all related European R&D activities in the area is diffi -cult to provide. The Future Internet Assembly (FIA) was established in March 2008 in Bled, Slovenia. FIA is ensuring appropriate coverage of this large and challenging research domain that includes innovative research in the area of networking, experimental facilities and testing within the FIRE [7] program. Re-cently the initiative related to the Future Internet enterprise system – the project cluster FInES [8]– was added to the FIA program. In July 2009 the fi nal report of the EU DG INFSO [1] Task Group on Interdis-ciplinary Research Activities for the Future Internet was published. This report identifi ed the design,

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | WINTER 2011 | 41

implementation, testing and vali-dation platforms as major research challenges for the EU. Cross-dis-ciplinary research activities are an essential part of these platforms. Japan, Korea (KOREN) and In-dia have set up similar initiatives; China has its own research initia-tive on the Future Internet: AsiaFI. Cooperation between this initiative and the EU FP7 projects recently have been set up.

Future Internet discussions about Internet governance and business models are ongoing in other communities: international governmental and non-governmen-tal organizations such as OECD [9], ITU [10], and UN-IGF [11]. In addition, the Internet Society and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) are developing position papers and projects on issues such as the Internet economy, Internet governance, and network neutral-ity. The recently expired contract between ICANN and the U.S. gov-ernment is one step forward toward building up real internationally governed cooperation, and inclu-sion of civil society as its constitu-tional part.

The architecture for the new In-ternet must be designed in a way that avoids predetermining the out-come of particular confl icts in the future marketplace. These confl icts should be allowed to play out inside the architecture after it is deployed.

Articulating the grand chal-lenges of the Future Internet and working towards solutions needs a wider debate as well as concrete work among a growing community of interdisciplinary researchers and major stakeholders. Different views exist with respect to what may be missing from the current architecture or why such concepts are missing. Some of the agree-ments achieved during the think-tank meetings are presented here. A full report is available in the EI-FFEL white paper and on the FI-PEDIA portal [12].

Evolutionary MechanismsAccording to EIFFEL, the Internet needs to be carefully observed be-fore starting the new design. The evolution of the current Internet was compromised [13] because its architecture does not allow legiti-mate concerns to be expressed af-ter its original design. As a result, users, providers, and business cus-tomers solve their problems in ad hoc ways, adding carbuncles that violate the original architecture. Then subsequent requirements are even more diffi cult to satisfy, be-cause of all the feature interactions that are exceptions to the original architecture.

The root of this problem lies deep in the processes used to de-sign architectures and solutions. Currently, much emphasis is placed on the design phase of the architec-ture, with requirements phases and use case defi nitions, accompanied by processes of standardization. This inevitably leads to an empha-sis on concerns that are important to the players who are deeply in-volved in this phase, while it ne-glects concerns of the actors enter-ing the scene after the solution has been fi xed. This Newtonian-Des-cartian concept of system design, relying on requirements and user case defi nition phases, assumes the ability to capture all relevant concerns and therefore resolve the most probable run-time problems at design time. The widening scope of the Internet beyond mere tech-nology, and the increase in ad hoc solutions after the design of the original architecture bring this de-sign process into question. Some

authors propose [14] a shift from a reductionist Newtonian-Descartian approach to Darwinian approaches [15], where the evolutionary kernel is a component that has been prov-en successful for multiple uses, so it may act as a platform for evolution [16]. Using this approach, design becomes the design process itself, i.e., a process in which concerns of actors are incorporated into the system at runtime, recognizing the inability to cater to all possible requirements during design time. However, this requires understand-ing what was good in the old de-sign and what should be preserved in the new design.

These considerations during the EIFFEL discussions of Internet evolution can be summarized as follows:

■ The Internet, like any large-scale system, needs to evolve. This evolution is particularly important considering the evolution of society due to the Internet. We need to un-derstand the dynamics in play and devise an architecture that is suited for these dynamics to commence during runtime.

■ The scope of the dynam-ics affecting change of the Internet is widening. The Internet has become more than a technical artifact – it has transformed from a net-work for geeks to a crucial infrastructure for society and business. The virtual and real worlds abide by similar rules, including respect for human rights. Hence, the question of

Structural and architectural problems of the current Internet cannot be solved without understanding how the system interacts with the rest of the world, including with humans and machines.


the evolution of the Internet is no longer merely a techni-cal question.

■ The Internet’s evolutionary speed is increasing with ad-vances of technology. For in-stance, memory is becoming so cheap, in particular when compared to the formative years of the Internet, that solu-tions for caching vast amounts of content locally is likely to transform the way users and customers deal with content.

■ In that context, another prob-lem needs immediate atten-tion: consumption of energy related to increased memory use and processing power. The Internet has become an-other area for energy savings and low-energy consump tion devices for infrastructure and applications.

Coping with the changes and with the research agenda were is-sues discussed and worked on within the think-tank meetings. It was obvious that the old models of development that were mostly based on an engineering approach are not very suffi cient. The com-plexity of the system and its inter-relation with society require sci-entifi c methods based on facts and measurements to understand and react to the global picture and to the expected evolution.

Internet-Society Scenarios In 2009, the Internet Society (ISOC) [17] provided EIFFEL with an illus-tration of possible forms of evolu-tion based on an “Internet Futures Scenarios” exercise. This exercise produced four visions of the future in which different stakeholders’ in-

terests achieve dominance in the Future Internet’s development. The scenarios are presented in Fig. 1, and illustrate possible designs around two axes that point to dif-ferent outcomes. The vertical axis designates whether the Future In-ternet will remain true to the old Open Internet Model (generative, rather than reductive). The hori-zontal axis designates whether it will become distributed and de-centralized (rather than under the command and control of regimes). These axes represent two key areas of external world confl icts (social and economic) between Internet stakeholders, impacting the de-ployed Internet reality. Together they delineate four quadrants, each of which can be described as an il-lustrative scenario.

The quadrants between the two axes refl ect the effects of mis-alignments in the incentives of the Future Internet. The main incen-tives and what drives the stakehold-ers’ actions are presented in Table I. The columns catagorize the major

Fig. 1. ISOC Future-Internet scenarios.

Internet Futures Scenarios

Will the world embrace or resist the open Internet model? What model will be moresuccessful? Command and control? Or, Distributeed and Decentralized?

Porous GardenScenario

Moats and DrawbridgesScenario

Common PoolScenario

Boutique NetworksScenario

Generative

Commandand

Control

Decentralizedand

Distributed

App Storesand Closed Devices

Client Capture

Sticky Services

Interoperability

Open Access

Internet Model

Balkanization

No Consensus

Multiple Roots

Tight Regulation

Censorship

Content Control

Innovation

Competition

Trust

Security

Risk-Mitigation

Control-Through-Rules

Heavy Regulation

Exclusive StandardsLight Regulation

Open Standards

Reductive

The Internet, like any large-scale system, needs to evolve.


stakeholders in terms of what they fear and what they are greedy for.

Among the four quadrants, the Common Pool quadrant is the most positive with respect to the “gen-erative” and the “distributed and decentralized” properties of the Fu-ture Internet. In the Common Pool scenario, all the resources that are part of the Future Internet are made available to the overall community. This scenario can be considered as the ideal for which Internet devel-opment and deployment has always striven, though never perfectly achieved. This scenario provides the maximum fl exibility, deploy-ment, innovation, and opportuni-ties to all stakeholders. Technolo-gies are planned to be built out “horizontally,” rather than in full-service verticals. This quadrant is named the Common Pool to sug-gest a future where information service and application gardens will not be completely walled, but will still be somewhat restricted to particular channels.

The Porous Garden scenario is designed around stakeholders’ in-centives for increased control over business and revenue. In this quad-rant, the application and service-provider stakeholders are leading the evolution with architectures that feature increased command and control in vertical services. In this vision of the Future Internet, the networks remain global, but access to content and services is tied to specifi c networks and as-sociated information appliances.

Financial incentives for content producers and software developers would result in continued innova-tion within the appliance-based model, but network operators will be constrained to evolve their ser-vices to support appliances and not to support general Internet ser-vices. Consumers would have to purchase multiple appliances and associated subscriptions to avail themselves of the full range of in-novation on the network. This sce-nario refl ects the general misalign-ment between the incentives of the content producers and those of end users, as well as (ultimately) net-work operators.

The Boutique Networks quad-rant represents a scenario where the networks, not the applications, are expected to be the dominant drivers of the future. This quad-rant features intense network spe-cialization. This Future Internet is not expected to be a single, general network, but rather is composed of specialized networks that provide “boutique” services. This scenario envisions a future in which politi-cal, regional, and large enterprise interests fail to optimize on the social and economic potential of a shared, global set of richly con-nected networks (today’s Internet).

Instead this scenario refl ects the outcome of parties optimizing con-trol in small sectors (political and otherwise). While these balkan-ized networks continue to lever-age the benefi ts of existing Internet standards, they do not collectively provide the basis for generalized application and service develop-ment and deployment. In that re-gard, this quadrant represents the opposite of the Porous Garden quadrant, in that it is network-de-velopment interests that are expect-ed to dominate.

The Moats and Drawbridge quadrant refl ects a future where stakeholders seek tighter command and control and where more reduc-tive, constrained network environ-ments are expected to prevail. The increased (perceived) need to pro-vide security and consistent envi-ronments through command and control operations and closed de-velopment practices means this sce-nario is drawing an Internet that is heavily centralized and dominated by a small number of big players who create their own rules in a few “big-boys” clubs. In this scenario, strong regulations can be expected as governments seek to impose some public-interest obligations on the industry, as the users’ interests

Table I Internet-Stakeholder Incentives

Fear Greed

End users Privacy, Overcharge, Pricing Unfairness

Cheap/free services, Cheap/free content, Cheap/free network access

Service/Content Providers Losing their market share because of competition, innovation and regulation

Market dominance, Monitor users’ behaviours, Tiered Services (no network neutrality)

Network Providers Losing their market share because of competition, innovation and regulation

Market dominance, Monitor users’ behaviours, Tiered Services (no network neutrality)

Governments Security, Politics Control of Content, Control of Access to Content, Monitoring (Spying) on Users

The root of the problem lies deep in the processes used to design architectures and solutions.


and incentives will not be natively supported. Control could extend to limiting the equipment that could connect to the network. Content could be proprietary and protect-ed by strong intellectual property rights. This quadrant shows the highest barrier for the entry of new applications, networks, services, and end users.

These scenarios illustrate a vi-sion based on discussions at the EI-FFEL think-tank meetings. From an economic point of view (the most democratic at least), the per-fect scenario would be the one that exists in a perfect market, the one for which the following are pres-ent: perfect market information, no participant with suffi cient market power to set prices, no barriers to entry or exit, and equal access to production technology.

An immediate result of perfect market information should also be perfect pricing mechanisms. Doubt-lessly, the Common Pool scenario is the one that mostly resembles the perfect market and is close to the cur-rent “ideal.” Is it possible to infl uence the design of the Future Internet so that it can naturally stabilize itself to this quadrant? The answer is proba-bly “yes,” and the way to achieve this is via a design for change. Special attention has to be paid to the infor-mation aspect, which in a network-based system translates to network measurements and monitoring.

Business and Social Demands The particular technical approach to the current Internet created busi-ness structures that evolved around it, such as the transit and peering relationships of autonomous sys-tems. Any fundamental change to the current Internet will undoubt-

edly have an impact on these exist-ing business structures. Too radical a change will cause problems in adopting the change – and so delay the advancement. Hence, technical and economic migration strate-gies from here to there are crucial when targeting a wide adoption of proposed Internet changes. For this reason, grand challenges in eco-nomics must be addressed as well as technical challenges. This needs to start with gathering the right au-dience for this work and it needs to be driven by a clear emphasis on solving concrete problems.

The Internet in its early days was a vehicle for email-based commu-nication – reasonably immediate, but not requiring real-time end-to-end connectivity. It was also a vehi-cle for simply improving the infor-mation fl ow between parties who would have otherwise exchanged the information, but more slowly or in smaller quantities. Along with this benefi cial relationship with so-cial structures, the Internet brought opportunities for antisocial misuse. The demands of improving social communication and refl ecting so-cial structure are growing, but at the same time issues of privacy and safety in a completely connected world are becoming increasingly problematic. Birth/death records, medical records, banking records and so forth were kept long before there was an Internet, but the In-ternet made them more accessible to legitimate users, and also made it simpler for malefactors to get at the records. As the information in-frastructure became increasingly integrated into, and critical for, our society, attacking the Internet in-frastructure also became increas-ingly worthwhile.

The Internet is a refl ection of society, but this refl ection is always partial. As such, it will evolve to provide increasing aspects of social infrastructure requirements, but it is diffi cult to accurately predict the next steps. In fact, some of the in-novation is likely to come from out-side the Internet. Who would have thought that carrying around small wireless cell phones with tiny key-boards would turn into instant mes-saging and from there make the leap to the Internet and soon into all the different modes of social networking with the user-designed Web 2.0 tools? Innovation will al-ways have an element of surprise for some stakeholders.

One of the interesting social challenges the user community is facing today is information over-load. There is too much informa-tion. There are too many services that want to claim users’ trust. There are too many options and too many individuals who want attention. The challenge will be to evolve ap-proaches that refl ect human and so-cial approaches to dealing with in-formation overload. This is already happening in what are probably simple ways in social networking contexts. Users group their friends, create channels for topics, create wikis, and follow their friends via Twitter. The world is being clus-tered, but this can be understood as the early stage of the social change induced by the Internet.

Newspapers were a mechanism for fi ltering, organizing, and lim-iting information that would oth-erwise overwhelm the reading audience. With the demise of news-papers, what elements of the almost infi nite fl ow of bits will bring an order that is refl ective of the human mind and human social structure? In the long run, will that also allow each human to retain a somewhat personal view in large social struc-tures? How will individuality and privacy be protected?

Another question relates to the impact of governance on the

The nature and impact of choosing a particular evolutionary path for the Future Internet needs to be made explicit.


Internet and vice versa: what is the impact of the Internet on gov-ernance? It is clear that the low-cost and pervasive availability of a uniform communications substrate has had a signifi cant impact on the global society that is becoming the digital society. Historically, explor-ers circled the world and laid claim to other lands, thus beginning po-litical and economic connectedness around the globe. The presence of the Internet has qualitatively changed the nature and degree of that connectedness. In the current economic and political situation, no country can make decisions that will have only a local effect. There is no more pure isolation. Given that, the relationship between the Internet and governance is becom-ing increasingly important. And perhaps even more importantly, the Internet may change forever the governance of, by, or for the people. Blogging and cell-phone cameras that can transmit photos are having profound effects on the capability of individuals to constrain their governments. This is likely to have an impact, for example, on regula-tion when considering the growing role of end users in the participa-tion of the Internet. End users may grow into an essential part of the Future Internet, moving away from their current role of mere consum-ers into a more active role in gov-ernance. How this will affect ways to regulate certain parts of the In-ternet will be important to under-stand.

Steps ForwardThe most important observation of the EIFFEL Think Tank is that future architecture should not be a balance at design-time towards the wanted world. Instead, a mini-mum substrate should be designed that gives the Internet fl exibility to behave in different ways at differ-ent times and in different places depending on the outcome of mar-ket selection and social regulation mechanisms [18], [19], while re-

taining levels of performance that render it fi t for purpose. Hence, the research emphasis should move from design time to a largely run-time model for resolving potential confl icts. Some of the most impor-tant aspects as identifi ed by the EI-FFEL Think Tank are:

■ Resilience, failure tracking, and management: The In-ternet’s distributed design is popularly renowned for its robustness to failure. Indeed failures often do heal auto-matically, but not quickly. The result is an increasingly unreliable service. Also, many failures are not ame-nable to automatic solution, being due to human errors in confi guration and so forth. It is generally believed that to-day’s Internet does not have effective solutions to these problems.

■ Availability and robustness against attack: The Internet is being used repeatedly by malware to attack both de-livered services and the In-ternet’s infrastructure. Solu-tions to these problems often block innovative legitimate uses of the Internet as well as illegitimate ones, effectively slowing down the Inter-net’s evolutionary progress. Proper architectural support to address the root means of these attacks is needed, but there is no consensus about the partial solutions that have been proposed so far.

■ Information security scal-ability: The state of the art in information-security tech-niques is suffi ciently robust to ensure any form of se-

curity, except that the tech-niques do not scale to global proportions in nonhierarchi-cal groups. Another aspect of information security is infor-mation accountability. While the Internet can cause infor-mation to be shared or not, once it has been shared at all, any control is essentially lost with regard to further shar-ing. Exposure is dependent on some vague sense of trust in those with whom we have shared.

■ Resource accountability: The current Internet architecture allows everyone to use any resource anywhere on the Internet to the extent that they want. However, at pres-ent, network operators are deploying boxes to limit or block communication with certain users or with certain applications. Even if Inter-net networks were trying to share capacity without making judgements about content, the architecture does not reveal the infor-mation they need to make other networks and their us-ers accountable when they overuse stretched resources. The consequent inability to properly limit free riding (or to deliberately allow it) leads to uncertainty over whether capacity investments can be recouped, which in turn negatively affects the whole value chain of the Internet.

■ Network-application coordi-nation: Over the years, the application programming interfaces (APIs) at the top of the TCP/IP protocol suite have become ossifi ed and

The current Internet is the most important infrastructure of the digital society.


stale. More importantly, they have become almost impen-etrable. In the downward di-rection, middle boxes (e.g., fi rewalls and network ad-dress translators) only recog-nize the protocols that existed when they were deployed. So they block out all attempts by applications to use new APIs to new lower-layer protocols and services. In the upward direction, applications can-not fi nd out about the net-work or their paths through the network in order to create richer services themselves – services that could exploit a more accurate knowledge of network topology, network failures, and traffi c charac-teristics.

■ Scaling for more extreme dy-namics: The dynamic range of the current Internet archi-tecture is hitting its limits. In-creasingly, the inter-domain routing system cannot con-verge quickly enough follow-ing a change, leaving longer periods of disconnection. More sites are connecting to the Internet through multiple links to improve resilience, but the inter-domain routing system is designed so it then has to treat these sites as dis-tinct networks rather than as stubs of a single-provider net-work. This makes the routing system appear much larger without the Internet grow-ing at all. Also, the Internet’s congestion-control mecha-nisms have hit the end of their dynamic range, since higher bit-rates require higher accel-erations to reach them.

The nature and impact of choos-ing a particular evolutionary path for the Future Internet needs to

be made explicit, and needs to be understood by all the stakeholders. There should be clear technical, ethical, legal, and business rea-sons for making any choice. Since such choices are inherently con-straining, the establishment of an orthodoxy that results from mak-ing a constricting decision must be balanced by inviting challenges and weighing evidence.

It is crucial to pay attention both to the current problems and to the evolutionary mechanisms of the In-ternet. Those mechanisms will de-termine how evolution progresses, and if it progresses at all. Decisions made at this point must remain rel-evant and fresh for at least as long as the current Internet has proved valuable, in a world in which Moore’s law continues to apply. The investment of time and effort in widespread changes to the whole system will not occur unless such changes deliver results quickly enough for practical cost recovery. The changes must also continue to give returns over many decades in a constantly evolving technological, economic, and social environment. The EIFFEL think-tank intends to stimulate discussion on the major points of why and how the world will be going about the Future Internet.

Author InformationThe author is with the Jožef Stefan Institute and Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and with the Computer and Sys-tems Science Department, Univer-sity of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected].

AcknowledgmentThis article is a result of the work of the think-tank of the EU funded FP7 project EIFFEL. The contributions of all the members

and caretakers of the project are appreciated.

References[1] Draft Report of the Task Force Interdiscipli-nary Research Activities Applicable to the Fu-ture Internet, version 4.1; http://forum.future.Internet.eu, accessed July 13, 2009.[2] EU FP7 Project EIFFEL; www.fp7-eiffel.eu, accessed 6.1.2011.[3] FIPEDIA; www.fipedia.org, accessed Dec. 12, 2010.[4] FIND (Future Internet Design). www.net-sfind.net, accessed Sept. 8, 2009.[5] Network Science and Engineering Council, “Network Science and Engineering (NetSE) Research Agenda;” http://www.cra.org/ccc/docs/NetSE-Research-Agenda.pdf, accessed Sept. 8, 2009.[6] GENI; www.geni.net, accessed Dec. 10, 2010.[7] FIRE Future Internet; www.future-Inter-net.eu, accessed Jan. 10, 2009.[8] Future Internet Enterprise System (FInES) Cluster, Pos. pap. vers. 1; accessed May 15, 2009, www.cordis.eu.[9] OECD, “The Future of the Internet Econ-omy OECD Ministerial Meeting Report;” www.oeced.org/futureInternet.pdf.[10] ITU Technology Watch, Rep. 10.[11] Forum (IGF) - The First Two Years’ Report; www.intgovforum.org/, Accessed Dec. 5, 2009.[12] D. Trossen, Ed, “Starting the discussion,” white pap., EIFFEL think tank, July 2009; http://www.eiffel-thinktank.eu, accessed Dec, 12, 2009.[13] B. Jerman-Blažic “The future of the In-ternet: Tussles and challenges in the evolu-tion pat as identified by EIFFEL think tank V: BERNTZEN, Lasse (ur.),” presented at the Fourth Int. Conf. Digital Society, Feb. 10–16, 2010 (St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles). In Proc. ICDS 2010, pp. 25–30. [14] R. Hollingsworth and K. Müller, “Trans-forming socio-economics with a new episte-mology,” Socio-Economic Rev., vol. 6, pp. 395–426, 2008.[15] C. Dovrolis, “What would Darwin think about clean-slate architectures?” ACM SIG-COMM Computer Commun. Rev., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 2008. [16] D. Trossen, Ed., “The core-edge story,” white pap., Core-Edge Dynamics Work. Group, Communications Futures Prog., M.I.T., 2005.[17] Internet Society; www.isoc.org, accessed Jan. 6, 2011. www.itu.ch, www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu/oth/...T230100000A0001PDFE.pdf., accessed Sept. 5, 2009 and Apr. 5, 2010.[18] D. Clark, K. Sollins, J. Wroclawsk., and B. Braden, “Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomor-row’s Internet,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 462–475, June, 2005.[19] D. Clark and M. Blumenthal, “The end-to-end argument and application design: The role trust,” presented at Conf. on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy (TPRC), 2007.