<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] What is Network Neutrality - was; a very grounded and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It's more more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but<BR>
collectively, the public Internet is greater than the sum of its constituent<BR>
parts"<BR>
<BR>
Like you say McTim, private inter-(nets) are no big deal.<BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: McTim [<A HREF="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tue 1/6/2009 11:42 AM<BR>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Parminder<BR>
Cc: Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton; isolatedn@gmail.com<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality - was; a very grounded and divergent perspective on Net Neutrality<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
> 'they may own the networks, but the Internet is ours'.<BR>
<BR>
It's more like "I own my network, you own yours, they own theirs, but<BR>
collectively, the Internet is greater than the sum of it's constituent<BR>
parts"<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> I agree that it is a crucial and a difficult time for global public interest<BR>
> advocates interested in 'saving the Internet' in its original open, public<BR>
> and egalitarian conception. For this purpose we need to be strategic in our<BR>
> advocacy plans and make all necessary alliances. It is for this reason that<BR>
> I mentioned in my original email in this thread that though I/ we have some<BR>
> problems with the way the term Network Neutrality is being used by many, it<BR>
> is still one of the most appropriate 'umbrella' for us to to be working<BR>
> under.<BR>
><BR>
> However, after the recent Wall Street Journal article attracted our<BR>
> attention towards important nuances (though, as will be argued, they are<BR>
> hardly 'nuances') in the network neutrality (NN) debates and advocacy, we<BR>
> think that greater conceptual clarity on 'what is NN' is required before we<BR>
> can move forward in this area..<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081228_meanings_of_network_neutrality/</A><BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
McTim<BR>
<A HREF="http://stateoftheinternetin.ug">http://stateoftheinternetin.ug</A><BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
<BR>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>