<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [governance] What is Network
Neutrality</title></head><body>
<div>All,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and
without a lot of verbosity. That's good.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying. But I
am hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because
"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large)
standards of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without
informing the user, not diverting content to others (such as the
police) without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent. Wen
you get to the details, however, they will vary country by country, as
well as opinion by opinion.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to
formulate such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go
on around the "edges" of such a list, with increasing
arguments about what should go on and what should not go on a
list.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their
delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user
can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos'
suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there
exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space. If
one ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it
will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select
their provider accordingly.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion
without ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."
Given the different definitions and occasional quasi-religious
arguments using the term, I think that's a good thing.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>George</div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~~~~</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Times New Roman"
size="+1">Michael</font><tt><br>
<br>
>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the<br>
>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition
of NN and<br>
>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible
significance<br>
>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Carlos's and George's formulations are
important parts of network neutrality (NN). George wants, in his
words,<br>
<font face="Times New Roman">"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>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
To quote again from Obama's technology doc<br>
<br>
"<font face="Times New Roman">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></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
Michael Gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>I haven't been following this
discussion as closely as I could have (being<br>
pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see
much<br>
value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts
the<br>
discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN
and<br>
towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible
significance<br>
of NN from a user/civil society perspective.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of
technical<br>
definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the
longer<br>
term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will
depend<br>
on transient technical capacities and designs.<br>
<br>
The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet<br>
governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed
and in<br>
that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the
Internet as a<br>
"public trust" might not be the direction to look.
Identifying/prescribing<br>
something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back
for example to<br>
the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need
to<br>
develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision
making in<br>
araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there
are also<br>
on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so
on and<br>
so on.<br>
<br>
The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual
countries<br>
have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest
requires a<br>
management framework to determine an appropriate balance between
competing<br>
local private, group and public interests.<br>
<br>
If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public
trust" surely<br>
it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and
governing of<br>
this would provide a framework within which the transient issues
and<br>
competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out
in some<br>
kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.<br>
<br>
MBG<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: George Sadowsky [</tt><a
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net"><tt
>mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</tt></a><tt>]<br>
Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM<br>
To:</tt> <a
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><tt>governance@lists.cpsr.org</tt
></a><tt>; Carlos Afonso; Parminder<br>
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
Beaton;<br>
</tt><a
href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com"><tt>isolatedn@gmail.com</tt></a><tt><br
>
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality<br>
<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net<br>
neutrality. In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation
by<br>
ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is
a<br>
government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up
in<br>
the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);<br>
and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying
to<br>
do spam control or other damage control of some kind. Note that
this<br>
would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply<br>
inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)<br>
<br>
There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and<br>
there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the<br>
subject. It's probably worth at least establishing and
contrasting<br>
definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for<br>
users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.
I<br>
agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not
concentrate<br>
upon implications for the user.<br>
<br>
I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what
the<br>
ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I<br>
would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a
framework</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>that allows/requires an ISP to
declare, in simple language or<br>
languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and<br>
delivery. This is most necessary and useful at the local
level,<br>
where there is one path to the user's computer. Although higher
tier<br>
ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not<br>
useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are
likely</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>to belong to multiple carriers and in
theory may even vary, packet by<br>
packet.<br>
<br>
This is a REAL Internet governance topic.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
George<br>
<br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~~<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:<br>
</tt><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>Regarding the growing drive for doing
ever more complex analyses under<br>
the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's
article<br>
(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at<br>
</tt><a
href=
"http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar"
><tt
>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002<span
></span>/ar</tt></a><tt><br>
t00012),<br>
which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine
poliTICs<br>
(</tt><a
href="http://www.politics.org.br"><tt>www.politics.org.br</tt></a><tt
>). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the<br>
PDF version under a CC licence from the site.<br>
<br>
In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel
most<br>
if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in<br>
consideration. I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in
Z<br>
country using XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem
to<br>
reveal packet manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX
operator<br>
is happening. How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory<br>
handles (or lack<br>
thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation,
what<br>
political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of
the<br>
brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.<br>
<br>
However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in
considering<br>
NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for
IGF.<br>
<br>
frt rgds<br>
<br>
--c.a.<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><br>
-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><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>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>