<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font>
<pre wrap=""><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Michael</font></big>
>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.</pre>
Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network
neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">"a clear statement by an ISP
of what the ISP does with respect to
traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a reasonable
goal should be to establish a framework that allows/requires an ISP to
declare, in simple language or languages, its policies with respect to
content manipulation and delivery. "</font><br>
<br>
If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and
specific provisions,
about what a user can do - in terms of remedies open to her - if she
finds that traffic is being inappropriately manipulated. <br>
<br>
Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO they
come after some kind
of clarity and acceptance about what constitutes inappropriate
traffic
violation, (or conversely, NN). Otherwise, what if an ISP declares a
policy of two to three kinds of transmission service as per different
payment slabs, and then adheres to it sincerely, and also announces
means of redress if found violating. I dont see this as
fulfilling the requirement of NN.<br>
<br>
A statement of self-defined principles can go a long way in addressing
ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are likely, to be
considered patently and
obviously wrong. Such statements can also be tested in the courts
against normal competition and anti-trust laws. However, transparent
declaration of self-defined policy, and possible means of redressal,
while being
important, by themselves do not fill in for the need to have some clear
public interest principles and regulations defining and enforcing NN. I
dont think
discussing such principles takes the discussion to avoidable semantics
area, away from a user perspective. <br>
<br>
To quote again from Obama's technology doc<br>
<br>
"<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Users must be free to
access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices.
They have
a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans.
But these guarantees are not enough to
prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the
freedom of expression on the
Internet...... " (full quote in my previous email)</font><br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
Michael Gurstein wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:372706013A6241E6B0A75930067B33A4@userPC"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
on transient technical capacities and designs.
The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
"public trust" might not be the direction to look. Identifying/prescribing
something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
so on.
The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
local private, group and public interests.
If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
MBG
-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</a>]
Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
All,
I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
neutrality. In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
do spam control or other damage control of some kind. Note that this
would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)
There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
subject. It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy. I
agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
upon implications for the user.
I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
delivery. This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
where there is one path to the user's computer. Although higher tier
ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
packet.
This is a REAL Internet governance topic.
Regards,
George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar</a>
t00012),
which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.politics.org.br">www.politics.org.br</a>). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
PDF version under a CC licence from the site.
In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in
consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z
country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to
reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator
is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory
handles (or lack
thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.
However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.
frt rgds
--c.a.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>