 
3)	The linkage to usage: Today the basic service of the network is to carry traffic. In some way or other (sometimes very approximate), the user pays for traffic carriage. Facilities represent the capability to carry that traffic, and the payment for usage provides a return on investment. Thus, we assume that those who invest in expensive facilities will need enough visibility into usage and demand to justify investment
a.	Need a rigorous assessment as to whether this is fundamental. 
b.	Perhaps we need a futures market.
4)	Regulating control. If we want the facilities owners to benefit from the success of the Internet, but not control  the success of the Internet, some limits on their actions may be needed.
a.	One POV is that thoughtful protocol design will lead to private sector investors ?doing the right thing?.
b.	One POV is that some regulation (or threat of regulation, or social pressure) will be needed to limit the actions of private-sector investors.
c.	One POV is that in the long run, the interests of private-sector investors will be mis-aligned with our desire for an open Internet, and some sort of public sector 
5)	Moving function closer to the ?physics? and the phy level increases the possibility that the function will be bound in the marketplace to the facilities owner.
a.	One preference is to decouple functions from ownership of facilities. 

9)	Examples of different designs, from this perspective. 
a.	Virtualization: the facilities owner does not control the forwarding decision, and knows nothing (in the extreme form) about the format of the packet, or how to parse it to find relevant data items. This case is somewhere between a weak opaque and implicitly open. 
b.	Information dissemination.
i.	One model (VJ) is that the names of the data items drive per-hop forwarding, so they are necessary and thus should be explicit. 
ii.	In another model, data-dissemination nodes are distinct from packet forwarding nodes, with packets being explicitly delivered to the data processing nodes. This allows two different business entities to implement the two functions. The name (and other meta-data) need not be visible to the packet forwarding nodes.
c.	Wireless networks
i.	The special challenges of wireless networks raise the recurring question of whether different protocols and formats should be used in the wireless region. If there is a conversion box between the wired and wireless region, then 
1.	It belongs to one of the network operators, e.g. the wireless operator. We see this sort of architecture in Internet-live cellular networks. 
2.	The conversion is done by a third party. In this case, the third-party may not have the capability to position the conversion box at the literal point of attachment (as defined by the topology. ) This implies that packets in one of the formats (e.g. the wireless format) will have to cross part of the wired region to get to the conversion box. 
a.	For conversion at the packet level, this pattern may not naturally emerge.
b.	For conversion at higher levels (e.g. application data), this is usually a natural pattern to emerge. 
c.	The implication is to avoid lockin of control by wireless providers, the architecture of a FI should call for a uniform packet format and uniform forwarding syntax/semantics, so that conversion can be positioned in locations not constrained by low-level topology. 
d.	Specialized forwarding models
e.	QoS and overlay networks
f.	[..]

