|Chaired by Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
> The "end-to-end argument" was proposed by network architects Jerome Saltzer, David Reed and David Clark in 1981 as a principle for allocating intelligence within a large scale computer network. It has since become a central principle of the Internet's design.
> In an increasing range of contexts, however, e2e is being questioned. Technologies that undermine e2e are increasingly being deployed; other essential services, such as quality of service, are being developed in ways that are inconsistent with e2e design.
> The aim of this workshop is to develop a way to speak about the effect of these changes on the environment of the Internet more generally. What are the costs of weakening the commitment to end-to-end? And are those costs outweighed by the benefits of these new services? What principle should guide developers and policy makers in evaluating the trade-offs that these new applications might present?
> Technologists, policy makers and lawyers will explore the values implicit in the e2e design, and then attempt to understand the consequences of deviating from e2e in the context of particular network applications-consequences both for innovation on the Internet, as well as for other values that end-to-end might support. The aim of the workshop is not to endorse end-to-end as an overriding design principle, but rather to develop a language within which policy makers can understand the consequences of different architectural designs.
> The workshop presents case studies about particular network implementations. Network design issues include security, quality of service, and identification. Case studies cover both cable and wireless broadband Internet service.
Additional support was provided by the Red Hat Center, through a grant to the Center for Media Education. Co-sponsoring organizations include the ACLU, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the Media Access Project.
Stanford Law School home