Is IP-ism Reformable?

The title requires some explanation. The term “IP-ism” was introduced by the author in [1] to name the current trend which tends to treat IP-related technology as an ideology – an “-ism” – rather than just one of many possible solutions within the ICT area. In short, according to IP-ism, the IP technology (its derivatives, modifications etc.) is regarded as a panacea for the development of a future global and universal information infrastructure ("Everything over IP, IP over everything"). The question from the title is of course ironic; the irony is quite obvious, I believe, for those who were not lucky enough to avoid close acquaintance with “-isms” which made the history of the latest century shameful in many respects. As history shows, idealism sooner or later leads to disappointment and finally becomes counterproductive. When disappointment comes, the usual tendency is to “reform the ideology”. In principle this is OK, but on the condition that the reforming implies rethinking fundamental elements of the ideology. Again, history shows that this is usually not the case. Instead, the original ideology is made more sophisticated and eclectic, which results – after some time – in new disappointment. If things become too bad, the ideology is finally overcome and substituted by a new one. This cyclic behavior seems to pertain to the evolution of civilization at large as well as to the development of technology. Obviously, IP-ism was born as a result of the incredible success of the Internet. In fact it would be surprising if the new ideology would not appear. The IP-ism is still in its infancy – the phase of its evolution in which great expectations and promises did not yet lead to substantial disappointment. But the disappointment will come for sure if instead of striving to reconsider the fundamental assumptions of the ideology we shall put all our efforts into “reforming it” – making it more sophisticated and eclectic. So the answer to the question from the title of this paper is conditional: “yes, but ...” or “no, if ...”.