Introduction to tussle analysis methodology

1. SESERV
Socio-Economic Services for European Research Projects
http://www.seserv.org
European Seventh Framework CSA FP7-2010-ICT-258138
Introduction to tussle analysis methodology
Costas Courcoubetis (AUEB)
The interplay of economics and
technology for the Future Internet
SESERV Workshop
Athens, Greece, January 31, 2012
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 1

2. The Internet as a Platform for Stakeholders’
Interactions
… Stakeholders with varying
End-users ISPs Regulators ASPs
socio-economic interests
Out-of-network socio-
economic interactions
Technology choices
Internet Socio- (including investments,
configurations)
Economic layer
Internet Technology outputs
Technology layer (connectivity, QoS, mobility,
security, etc.)
Internet middle
applications boxes Firewalls Technology
Internet protocols
components
links routers switches servers 3G towers
Socio-Economic layer is governed by laws of socio-economics,
while technology layer by laws of physics 2
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium

3. Basic Socio-economic Technology Cycle
Internet Socio- Adopt technology
Economic layer
Longer
ISP
Dimension resources
Feedback
Adaptation timescale
Stakeholders’ strategies Configure technology
/ policies with respect to
a specific technology
(functionality)
Use technology
Shorter
tussle outcome
At each stage conflicts of interest (incentives) arise at the socio-
economic layer.
The combination of actors’ strategies lead to a tussle outcome,
characterized by stakeholders benefits.
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 3

4. Tussle Evolution (1)
• If the tussle outcome is considered “unfair”
by certain stakeholders, they can react, and:
• leave the system
• adopt another technology or reconfigure that used
• ask the regulator to intervene
• … thus making the outcome unstable
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 4

5. Tussle Evolution (2)
• Even a “fair” tussle outcome can destabilize
other functionalities  spillover effect
• Case study: Bandwidth sharing:
• ISPs throttle bandwidth of p2p applications by using DPI
• p2p applications perform traffic obfuscation
• ISPs apply DPI techniques to affect quality of rival VoIP
services
• Analyzing the anticipated tussles can predict
unstable periods
• and help the long-term success of a technology
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 5

6. A tussle analysis methodology
Functionality I Functionality II
Step 1: Identify all primary stakeholder roles and their
characteristics for the functionality under investigation
new iteration spillover
Step 2: Identify tussles among identified stakeholders
tussle tussle tussle tussle
Step 3: For each tussle assess the impact to each stakeholder
and potential spillovers
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 6

7. Towards achieving stable
outcomes
• The “Design for choice” principle provides guidance
in designing protocols that allow for variation in
outcome. Useful properties are:
• “Exposure of list of choices” suggesting that the
stakeholders involved must be given the opportunity to
express multiple alternative choices and which the other
party should also consider.
• “Exchange of valuation” suggesting that the stakeholders
involved should communicate their preferences in regard to
the available set of choices (for instance by ranking them in
descending order).
• “Exposure of choice’s impact” suggesting that the
stakeholders involved should appreciate what the effects of
their choices are on others
• “Visibility of choices made” suggesting that both the agent
and the principal of an action must allow the inference of
which of the available choices has been selected.
Clark, D. D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K. R., and Braden, R.: Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet. IEEE/
ACM Trans. Networking 13, 3, pp. 462-475, June 2005
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 7

8. Towards avoiding tussle spillovers to
other functionalities
• The “Modularize the design along tussle boundaries” principle
helps in identifying whether tussle spillovers can appear.
• A protocol designer can check the following two conditions:
• “Stakeholder separation”, or whether the choices of one
stakeholder group have significant side effects on stakeholders of
another functionality (another tussle space), for example creates
economic externalities between stakeholders of different tussle
spaces.
• “Functional separation”, or whether different stakeholders use
some functionality of the given technology in an unforeseen way to
achieve a different goal in some other tussle space, i.e., the
functionality of technology A interferes (and possibly cancels) with
functionality of technology B.
Clark, D. D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K. R., and Braden, R.: Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet. IEEE/
ACM Trans. Networking 13, 3, pp. 462-475, June 2005
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 8

9. More Information
• http://www.seserv.org
• getinvolved@seserv.org
• http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=3870856
• http://www.twitter.com/seserv
© 2012 The SESERV Consortium 9