<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><font size=2
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Milton</span></font></st1:place></st1:City>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>>To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and
"private" ( = bad) is to fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><font size=2
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Milton</span></font></st1:place></st1:City>,
I think you misunderstood my dichotomy here. I was comparing Danny’s preference
for the term "resisting privatisation" to mine - 'promoting public-ness'
- so as to emphasize that we are saying very similar things.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>So the dichotomy I indicated was between the terms 'private' and 'public'
- they certainly mean the opposite, and derive their meaning from that opposition.
This certainly doesn’t mean that the world has either to be public or to
be private. These spheres are of course complimentary - how can one be without
the other.... I don’t know why should you read ideology in what is merely
clarification of terms, in an attempt to make a point. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>> To assert only one of these principles to the exclusion of the
other is destructive of its potential.>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>As to why our proposal of 'public-ness' asserts one point to the
exclusion of other is that the context - in this case issues like network
neutrality and shrinkage of public domain - may often require one to do so. For
example, an expression of concern about erosion of privacy in the Internet age may
legitimately asserts one point to the exclusion of other......<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>And complimentary relationships do not exist without struggles of power
and encroachment of legitimate spheres. We (IT for Change) did a study which
served as an input to the deliberation of the Task Force on Financial Mechanism
on ‘ownership models for ICTD initiatives’ (http://itforchange.net/mambo/content/view/38/40/
) which studies the issue of control and power within the much celebrated MSPs
in ICTD. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>> At its best, Net Neutrality is about maintaining that
complementary relationship and protecting it against certain (real or imagined)
threats.>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>And the threats to maintaining right public-private complementarity
implicated in the Net Neutrality issue are very real. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>>>At its worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place>
model of regulated unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation
and court battles.>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I do not know if you know that many other counties have a similar ‘model
of regulated unbundling of networks’ – one example is India, which
has a population of 1 Billion, which is much more that of US. So if you still
call it the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>
model I think you realize that US models are ‘larger than life size’
and get mercilessly exported – with or against wishes of people of other
regions. And this domination is even more real in telecom and IT areas. I do
not know why so many people still keep insisting NN to be a <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> issue, just because
European telecom regulation of last mile is relatively more liberal. (Conflating
NN with just the common- carriage or open access issue is a mistake which will
not take long to become too obvious to ignore.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>You actually assert the very basis of Internet in a manner which is
already being eroded by compromising of the NN principle. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>> Additionally, the internet is configured in a way that permits
developers of private services, applications and content the freedom to
innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity.>>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>You surely know that in many countries VoIP services are not being
allowed “to innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity”.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>> Given the rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom
policy laws, regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a
nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a contribution in this
area.>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I think this point gets partly addressed above, but I have something
interesting to say here. Do you not also think that the kind of censorships
that <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region> or <st1:place
w:st="on">S Arabia</st1:place> applies can also be considered rooted in ‘domestic
telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions’. But your whole IGF
proposal is on this issue – why, in this case, do YOU bother about what
other countries do, and what happens to people in other countries??? (And how
do you suppose “a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to
make a contribution in this area” of country based content control.) “Domestic”
and “global” may not be that distant in the info society. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>So if some ‘political’ rights of ‘other’ people
can be a global issue, why cant some socio – economic rights related issues
(media rights, communication rights, richness of public domain) of ‘other’
people also be global issues. But then this brings us to the issue of hierarchy
between rights, and even non-admissibility of some rights, which is something we
have discussed before. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Why should ‘political’ rights be managed ‘globally’
and global spaces be no-no for socio-economic rights?? This is a question many
in the developing countries often ask?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Parminder Jeet Singh<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>IT for Change, <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bangalore</st1:place></st1:City><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>91-80-26654134<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>www.ITforChange.net <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] <br>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:52 PM<br>
To: db@dannybutt.net; parminder@itforchange.net; governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>>> "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net>
4/8/2006 12:50 AM >>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>Exactly, that's why we framed the debate in terms of 'public-ness'
(private<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>and public as essentially opposites) and not of just network
neutrality<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>>(NN). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>On the contrary, the beauty of the Internet is that it makes private
and public complementary -- i.e., mutually reinforcing -- not
"opposites". The Internet is composed overwhelmingly of privately
owned physical networks that use the public, open, nonproprietary standards and
protocols to interoperate. Additionally, the internet is configured in a way
that permits developers of private services, applications and content the
freedom to innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and
"private" ( = bad) is to fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet
is and what will continue to make it a success. To assert only one of these
principles to the exclusion of the other is destructive of its potential. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The meaning of NN in this context is not entirely clear. At its best,
Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship and
protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats. At its worst, it is a
rather unproductive replay of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> model of regulated unbundling of
networks, which devolved into microregulation and court battles. I prefer
discussions to revolve around concepts of "nondiscrimination", but
admit that NN is a better PR term. Given the rootedness of these issues in domestic
telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to
how a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a contribution
in this area. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>