[governance] network neutrality (was IGC statements)

[Parminder]

Milton

> This whole sentence doesn't make sense to me. You should just strike it
> if you can.
> 
> The problem of NN is precisely that those in control of bandwidth extend
> vertical control to content and applications.
> 
> So it is literally meaningless to say that the NN problem resides in one
> layer or the other; it is about the extension of vertical control from
> one "layer" to another; i.e. from bandwidth to content/applications.

As you know I did make some changes in the doc, which now speaks about
openness in all layers rather than net neutrality in all layers.

However, as the topic 'network neutrality - ensuring openness in all layers'
suggests, the idea is to look at the real underlying meaning and
significance of neutrality or openness in all layers of the Internet. 

We may normally speak of 'the network' as the space in which data packets
flow along with the data packets themselves... but if we mean by 'network' ,
the Internet itself, its layers and boundaries keep evolving and changing.
And therefore certain 'bastardization' of terms may be necessary. 

For many the real or the most important aspect of the 'network' is already
the way google organizes the information infrastructure (and not the packets
space). With google buying up spectrum, global connectivity cables, putting
massive captive computing and storage powers in all parts of the globe,
monopolizes large parts of content (digitizing libraries on restrictive
terms) etc, soon 'google' may be 'the network', if it is not already so...

So coming back to the neutrality point, though the battles are most
prominent today in the area of neutrality of the physical layer to content
(yahoo etc) or applications (Skype), and google is the most prominent
advocate of NN here, we already have problems of whether the search engines
(application layer) should be neutral to content (searchable content). And
here google looks more like the villain. It digitizes public library content
but restricts its use by other search engines... (see
http://www.macworld.com/article/60765/2007/10/libraries.html and
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/22334  )

It may be a bit adventurous to do so as this point, but I think neutrality
of the application layer to content is at least as big a problem, and
therefore possibly can be considered under a broader conception of 'network
neutrality'.  Or do we need some different term for this...

This just came out of some internal discussions within ITfC on the issue of
openness or what we also call as 'public-ness' of the Internet, which is why
ITfC proposed this topic for a main session. 

The way existing openness main session was being organized at the IGF spread
issues too thin, and did not deal with the real issues of the Internet in
any meaningful manner. 

Parminder 









> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 7:29 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements
> 
> Hello, I have finally gotten a chance to review the statement. My vote
> is YES, understanding that we have a binary option here.
> 
> However, I note an error - not a wording problem or a shade of meaning I
> don't like, but an outright, puzzling error -- in the language on net
> neutrality (NN). The language in question says that the "challenges [of
> NN] are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in
> the content and application layers."
> 
> This whole sentence doesn't make sense to me. You should just strike it
> if you can.
> 
> The problem of NN is precisely that those in control of bandwidth extend
> vertical control to content and applications.
> 
> So it is literally meaningless to say that the NN problem resides in one
> layer or the other; it is about the extension of vertical control from
> one "layer" to another; i.e. from bandwidth to content/applications.
> 
> And by the way, "content and applications" are not separate "layers;"
> the application layer is a term that has meaning in the OSI framework;
> content is something that applications act on. In discussing NN, I
> suggest that we will do ourselves a favor if we abandon completely the
> ersatz layering terminology that seems to have evolved as a bastardized
> version of the OSI model. That's my pedantic 2cents for today. ;-)
> 
> MM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:34 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] IGC statements
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone
> >
> > Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open
> > consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them.
> >
> > At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements.
> Added
> > explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as
> > proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's
> suggestions)
> > SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR.
> >
> > If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if
> > possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps
> in
> > the
> > process of calling a possible rough consensus.
> >
> > When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be
> exactly
> > the
> > statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you
> accept
> > that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should be
> made
> > on the behalf of the group.
> >
> > We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl
> indicate
> > your
> > vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the work
> > being
> > done.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance