<!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</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>George,<BR>
<BR>
I agree the recs must be clear and simply stated.<BR>
<BR>
Unlike present SLAs/service contracts, which make very few explicit promises to end users.<BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: George Sadowsky [<A HREF="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Mon 1/12/2009 12:46 PM<BR>
To: Lee W McKnight; governance@lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein<BR>
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Brian Beaton; isolatedn@gmail.com<BR>
Subject: RE: [governance] What is<BR>
<BR>
Lee,<BR>
<BR>
You're right in that this information should be included in a<BR>
customer (end user) level SLA. And in fact it might be there, even<BR>
in my SLA with my provider. The problem is that the agreements I've<BR>
seen like many software license agreements, are long and complex, and<BR>
the policies may in fact change over time without the ISP updating<BR>
any of its SLAs.<BR>
<BR>
A number of years ago there was a major simplification of the<BR>
language used in insurance contracts in the United States, where<BR>
legalese was abandoned in favor of a much simpler form of expressing<BR>
the terms of the contracts. It made a big difference in the consumer<BR>
space. What I'm suggesting is that the same change occur with<BR>
existing (and non-existent) SLAs, and that such a policy statement<BR>
be posted and available from every ISP in a simple, easy to read and<BR>
comprehend form, and furthermore that it apply equally to all<BR>
customers in a particular service class.<BR>
<BR>
Only when it is possible for the average user to compare such<BR>
statements across providers will it be possible for customers to<BR>
discriminate in favor of providers whose transmission policies are<BR>
best for them.<BR>
<BR>
George<BR>
<BR>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR>
<BR>
At 12:09 PM -0500 1/12/09, Lee W McKnight wrote:<BR>
>Hi,<BR>
><BR>
>I also agree/hope we can get to a short, succinct, and<BR>
>internationally 'acceptable' set of standards or recommendations.<BR>
><BR>
>Starting perhaps with:<BR>
>1)"not discarding messages without informing the user,"<BR>
>2) "not diverting content to others (such as the police)without a<BR>
>legally obtained warrant or equivalent." and<BR>
>3) "ISPs being obliged/expected to disclose what (their) delivery<BR>
>policies are."<BR>
><BR>
>With regard to 3), from a service contract perspective, this would<BR>
>be embedded in a 'Consumer Service Level Agreement' between ISP &<BR>
>user. Maximum KBPS or MBPS are typically touted today, but not much<BR>
>info is available to users on 1) 2) and 3). Bill Lehr and I called<BR>
>for consumer sla's back in '02 in an article, but got no traction at<BR>
>the time. This feels like we are off to a more auspicious start at<BR>
>describing what a personal SLA should cover.<BR>
><BR>
>Meaning both user and provider consent and consensus would be expected.<BR>
><BR>
>I also agree a label or icon affixed by ISPs pledging to their<BR>
>customers to abide by whatever short list we come up with, could be<BR>
>useful.<BR>
><BR>
>Lee<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>-----Original Message-----<BR>
>From: George Sadowsky [<A HREF="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</A>]<BR>
>Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:47 AM<BR>
>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein<BR>
>Cc: 'McTim'; 'Steve Anderson'; Milton L Mueller; 'Brian Beaton';<BR>
>isolatedn@gmail.com<BR>
>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality<BR>
><BR>
>All,<BR>
><BR>
>Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and<BR>
>without a lot of verbosity. That's good.<BR>
><BR>
>Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying. But I am<BR>
>hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because<BR>
>"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.<BR>
><BR>
>I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards<BR>
>of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing<BR>
>the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police)<BR>
>without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent. Wen you get to the<BR>
>details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as<BR>
>opinion by opinion.<BR>
><BR>
>I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate<BR>
>such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around<BR>
>the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what<BR>
>should go on and what should not go on a list.<BR>
><BR>
>One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their<BR>
>delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user<BR>
>can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos'<BR>
>suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there<BR>
>exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space. If one<BR>
>ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it<BR>
>will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select<BR>
>their provider accordingly.<BR>
><BR>
>BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without<BR>
>ever mentioning the words "net neutrality." Given the different<BR>
>definitions and occasional quasi-religious arguments using the term,<BR>
>I think that's a good thing.<BR>
><BR>
>Regards,<BR>
><BR>
>George<BR>
><BR>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:<BR>
>>Michael<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.<BR>
>>Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network<BR>
>>neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,<BR>
>>"a clear statement by an ISP of what the ISP does with respect to<BR>
>>traffic manipulation (if anything), and I would think that a<BR>
>>reasonable goal should be to establish a framework that<BR>
>>allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or languages,<BR>
>>its policies with respect to content manipulation and delivery. "<BR>
>><BR>
>>If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and<BR>
>>specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies<BR>
>>open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately<BR>
>>manipulated.<BR>
>><BR>
>>Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO<BR>
>>they come after some kind of clarity and acceptance about what<BR>
>>constitutes inappropriate traffic violation, (or conversely, NN).<BR>
>>Otherwise, what if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of<BR>
>>transmission service as per different payment slabs, and then<BR>
>>adheres to it sincerely, and also announces means of redress if<BR>
>>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<BR>
>>addressing ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are<BR>
>>likely, to be considered patently and obviously wrong. Such<BR>
>>statements can also be tested in the courts against normal<BR>
>>competition and anti-trust laws. However, transparent declaration of<BR>
>>self-defined policy, and possible means of redressal, while being<BR>
>>important, by themselves do not fill in for the need to have some<BR>
>>clear public interest principles and regulations defining and<BR>
>>enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such principles takes the<BR>
>>discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a user perspective.<BR>
>><BR>
>>To quote again from Obama's technology doc<BR>
>><BR>
>>"Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to<BR>
>>attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and<BR>
>>honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not<BR>
>>enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that<BR>
>>limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote<BR>
>>in my previous email)<BR>
>><BR>
>>Parminder<BR>
>><BR>
>>Michael Gurstein wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>>>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<BR>
>>>[<<A HREF="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</A>><A HREF="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</A>]<BR>
>>>Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM<BR>
>>>To: <<A HREF="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>>governance@lists.cpsr.org;<BR>
>>>Carlos Afonso; Parminder<BR>
>>>Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;<BR>
>>><<A HREF="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com</A>>isolatedn@gmail.com<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<BR>
>>>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<BR>
>>>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>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>>At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>>>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>
>>>><<A HREF="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar</A>><A HREF="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar</A><BR>
>>>>t00012),<BR>
>>>>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs<BR>
>>>>(<<A HREF="http://www.politics.org.br">http://www.politics.org.br</A>>www.politics.org.br). If you can<BR>
> >>>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>
>>>> <BR>
>>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>>-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>><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>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>