<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:52352929.5040707@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard
that the judges are leaning towards allowing telecom and cable
broadband providers to charge OTT players for prioritized
network services, but will leave some other parts of the FCC's
Open Internet rules intact. Meanwhile in Europe, Commission
vice president Neelie Kroes last week released proposals for
major telecom reform aiming to create a single telecom market
which include network neutrality provisions that would allow
telcos to do much the same: they'd be able to differentiate
their offers perhaps by speed and compete on enhanced quality of
service. Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent throttling of
traffic and blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc).
<br>
Press release for the EC proposals
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm"><http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm></a>,
good summary
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm"><http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm></a>
<br>
If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not
certain in either case, then guess it might become a bit of a
norm for other country's to allow the same.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Also, all those pious statements that </font>governments
should not decide things in IG arena are much better directed at US
and EU governments, instead of developing country governments who
havent much to decide on with regard to global IG.... Who decided
the new EU framework on net neutrality, or the US law and norms,
which would be the global framework??? Let the MS-ists ask this of
themselves, and then tell us.. This is the debate that needs to take
place here...<br>
<br>
This is real global Internet governance - and the Northern
governments are doing it, completely on their own. Please turn your
MS guns towards them, for whatever they are worth. And please stop
participating in their hypocrisy about preaching MSism to others,
whom they desperately want to keep away from the table where public
policy decisions are taken for the whole world....<br>
<br>
Let at least civil society people from developing countries take
these wake up call.... It is in a very undemocratic way that the
global governance of the Internet is being done today, and they are
completely out of it.... No, just joining the MS chorus will not get
you there, it simply plays in the hands to those who want to keep
the Internet controls in their own hands. The global governance of
the Internet needs to really be democratised..<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:52352929.5040707@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<br>
<br>
Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet
- that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework
of the Internet by sheer market/economic, and, also often,
political dominance. Civil society has not been able to offer any
response to this patently anti democratic situation. Neither has
the much touted multistakeholder model any response to this
situation.
<br>
<br>
A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali
IGF will be full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these
years we could not get one main session on net neutrality (NN) -
which to me is almost 'the' paradigmatic public policy issue of
IG. In fact, there were really a lot of proposals to get a main
session on NN this year but , at the Paris MAG consultations, I
had the feeling that these proposals were actively discouraged if
not sabotaged by the powers that be.... Perhaps MAG members can
help us understand why we could not get a main session on NN, when
all kinds of sessions with vague titles made the grade...
<br>
<br>
This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on
procedural issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen
preventing the needed global discussions on real public policy
issues.
<br>
<br>
Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die
seems to have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these
years IGC has still not being able to get over arguing on things
like - the meaning of NN is not clear.... I consider it as a major
failure of IGC that we could do nothing, much less provide
leadership, on this all crucial IG issue.....
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Adam
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>