<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Dear Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two
conditions are met<br>
<br>
1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does
not try to seek to supplant it<br>
<br>
2. The important issue of very strong differences in the power of
different actors in a multistakeholder setting is always kept foremost,
and sufficiently factored into multistakeholder structures. In this
regard, the immense power of mega-corporates and there proclivity to
use multistakeholder platforms both for stalling public interest policy
making, and legitimising their own lobbying activities should be
carefully and evidently guarded against. <br>
<br>
As discussed in emails following the one you responded to, I most often
see that multistakeholderism is preached and practised outside the
above two important conditions, and this is my problem with this
concept.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your engagement with this discussion. Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
On Sunday 15 August 2010 02:13 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at">wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at</a>) wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C88D754E.BB7E%25wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles</title>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why
such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the
idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and
solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some
actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the
national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that
the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder
approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the privatization
of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up to the
not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit actors and
thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular cases.<br>
<br>
Wolfgang Benedek<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>:<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Hi All<br>
<br>
The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what
that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with
political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than
depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based
on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a
trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is
against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may
still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because
overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking
to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network
neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and
central part of what would be development agenda.)<br>
<br>
Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal
lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business
of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly
understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic
interest and private interest.<br>
<br>
Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed
to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing
wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries.
That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest
players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems
about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However
the essential difference between private interest players (businesses)
and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always
been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global
society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish
this difference. <br>
<br>
As Carlton notes in his email<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Sober commentators have already weighed in on
the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN
debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of
money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic
to pretend otherwise.<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working
for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's
singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest
representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems
built to give political respectability to private interests. <br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: <br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder:<br>
<br>
I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly
misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature of
things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators
have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google
switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the
critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to
follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre
Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell.
And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that
telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and
show preference in very business-like practical ways for those
customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light
of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of
the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of
connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume
transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a
marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for
me.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of
them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition.
Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to belong to any
club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment expressed has a
larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. Ginger’s response to
Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products
and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust.
Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public
image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating
to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture
response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of
losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of
genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency
trumps. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlton <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><b>From:</b>
parminder [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles<br>
</span></font><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">Carlton<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for
civil society is transparency. <br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's
subsequent email "<b>That way, as Americans lose access to the free and
open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away."<br>
</b> <br>
How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of
influencing it?<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and
activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There
will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares;
something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true
method, ala "free" text messaging for x period.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows
took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its
market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in
point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have
been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely
distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular
hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing
imagination.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span
style="font-size: 12pt;">Even in terms of commercial regulation, why
does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with
its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone
applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical
integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space.<br>
<br>
However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses
of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything
about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new
glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more
bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in
the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more
egalitarian world.<br>
<br>
You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its
i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that
the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and
therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is
enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to
probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve
the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who
cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless
greatly affected by these developments. <br>
<br>
In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place,
it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is
a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising
citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and
essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions
on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
<br>
<br>
Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlton<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
<br>
From: Ginger Paque [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">mailto:gpaque@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<br>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM<br>
<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>;
Ian Peter<br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ian and Parminder,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is<br>
<br>
between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David<br>
<br>
mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in<br>
<br>
Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone<br>
<br>
hooked on it. Then they started charging for it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more<br>
<br>
like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My<br>
<br>
serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Where do you see this 'line'?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more<br>
<br>
productive in Vilnius.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best, Ginger<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
Hi Parminder,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is
common<br>
<br>
practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free<br>
<br>
zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or<br>
<br>
traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to<br>
<br>
want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free<br>
<br>
market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a
lot<br>
<br>
more attention.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and<br>
<br>
potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I agree - we should discuss.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ian Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
From: parminder<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
<br>
<br>
Reply-To:<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>
, parminder<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">mailto:parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
<br>
<br>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530<br>
<br>
To:<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>
,<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a>>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">mailto:ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a>>
<br>
<br>
Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi All<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free<br>
<br>
of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I<br>
<br>
understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about<br>
<br>
something similar in Russia.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like<br>
<br>
Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and<br>
<br>
understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as<br>
<br>
above will be considered a NN violation under these codes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of<br>
<br>
shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start<br>
<br>
testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities,<br>
<br>
and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their-">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their-</a><br>
<br>
own-net-neutrality-deal.ars<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based<br>
<br>
Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to<br>
<br>
arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party<br>
<br>
to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely<br>
<br>
dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned,<br>
<br>
the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and<br>
<br>
indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder<br>
<br>
upon.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> <br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>