<!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">
<pre wrap="">>Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going forward:
>"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
>control of what content they view and what applications they use on
>the Internet."
>This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
> not), as Google does here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html"> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html</a>
</pre>
McTim<br>
<br>
The same Google policy blog, in defining NN, also says under, <br>
<br>
"What isnt Ok" - "Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns
Internet content and
applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of the
broadband connection."<br>
<br>
That is the only point I have been trying to argue over all these days,
and have in all obscuring ways been accused of obscurity. Now since
you are unlikely to say that even Google is confused, and you have
professed eagerness to adopt Google's definition of NN, can you
*specifically answer* if you think that the above, as Google says, is
*not* Ok, and a violation of NN. <br>
<br>
That is all we need, in order to move forward on this. We can just pull
this line into our assertion of what we think is NN as an objective of
our advocacy efforts. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f65fb55e0901140508t61f4f6acica3a03da341bb88b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 1/13/09, Parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am forwarding the response of Steve Anderson who leads the
Save-Our-Internet campaign in Canada, and to whom my original email in
this long and interesting thread was addressed. He replied with cc to
IGC list, but since he is not a member I am forwarding it to the list. I
also wanted to share how civil society actors involved in democratic
media issues look at the problem
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
We are all "civil society actors involved in democratic media issues".
, since I think the views in the present
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">discussion on the list have been, if I may say so, dominated by a
(unadulterated) free market based economic framework.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You may say it, but you would be incorrect. What Milton, Ralf and I
have been saying is that the Internet is not egalitarian in some of the
ways that you seem to think it is.
Google offers a definition that I think we can adopt in our work going forward:
"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in
control of what content they view and what applications they use on
the Internet."
This definition doesn't open the can of worms (what is ok and what is
not), as Google does here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html">http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> From Steve's response, it looks like that the NN advocacy position I
have been trying to formulate is not so obscure after all, as is made
out by much of the discussion on this list.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Not obscure, just too specific.
On the other hand, everyone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">does realize that the whole area is quite complex, and evolving.
However, from an action oriented advocacy point of view, which is what
we are trying to do vis a vis the IGF, one needs to formulate advocacy
positions as we go along based on our basic political and ethical
convictions. One cannot just keep waiting for a danger to completely,
and often irrevocably, envelop us, before thinking about doing anything.
And, as we all know, not doing anything is an important political position.
It is my humble opinion that this is what is happening in many quarters
vis-a-vis price-differentiated content transmission over the Internet
which is the most direct violation of the original and the fundamental
NN principle. To this extent, merely (and only) talking
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
What do you realistically expect the IGF to do besides talk?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>