<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Bertrand de La
Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com] <br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>>On <b>Net Neutrality</b> : one of the outcomes I took
from the discussions in the 2010 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>>EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the
question could be reframed <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>>around : "<b>limitations to traffic management</b>".
It combines the recognition that <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>>there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for
instance to ensure QoS <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>>for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be
limitations to it, in order to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>>preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination,
transparency, enabling <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>>innovation, etc...<br>
<br>
<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Actually some of the most important aspects of NN had nothing to
do with “traffic management” but rather with blocking/discrimination
against content, applications or services based on their origin or owner. The
NN movement got its first real impetus in the US from the Madison River case,
in which a telco providing internet access sought to disable competing VoIP
services. The idea that an Internet access provider would, like a cable TV
system, assert “editorial control” over what content, services and
applications we could connect to struck many of us as undesirable, and even
inimical to the entire foundation of internetworking. It is an attempt to make
us captive audiences for their own (higher-priced) services.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>This selectivity would not be a problem if the market for
internet access were highly competitive; anyone who discriminated or assembled
a bundle of services that was undesirable could simply be abandoned and we could
move to another supplier, who would have every incentive to meet our demand for
an unrestricted service. But the linkage of internet access to massive fixed
investments in physical infrastructure means that there are likely to be one or
two providers of broadband access – unless one unbundles the physical
facility - which in turn requires the provision of nondiscriminatory access to
the underlying physical facility, so the problem is just pushed back. (And of
course, in many countries the state, with its blocking/filtering policies, is
the worst discriminator against content, services and applications, let’s
not forget that.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>“Traffic management” came into the picture later. (Basically
after an AT&T exec started making noises about how he wanted
content/services providing web-based video to pay him for expanding the pipes.)
The traffic management issue became conflated with the content, services,
applications blocking because people feared that traffic prioritization
practices could be used in a discriminatory manner to favor certain suppliers
(again, think of cable TV). Here there would not be actual blocking of services,
but the improved performance associated with special traffic management arrangements
could still constitute a devastating form of discrimination. Again, it would
put the network operator in the inappropriate position of deciding what
content, services and applications we have access to based on their business arrangements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The odd thing about this debate is that it is of course
perfectly possible now for some service providers and organizations to buy more
bandwidth than others. And there is absolutely nothing wrong that. If I pay $X
for bandwidth N and someone else pays $2X for bandwidth 2N, fine. Indeed, any
network marketplace that doesn’t allow that is going to be dysfunctional.
The difference, however, is that the price for bandwidth is uniform for all –
so if I can afford $2X or $4x, I can get 2N or 4N bandwidth, whether or not the
network operator likes me or believes my service is good. The NN issue arises because,
as long as network operators have market power (and they do), they might choose
to sell Yahoo 4N or 16N levels of performance and refuse to sell me the same
amount, even if I am perfectly capable of paying for it. If we prohibit that
kind of activity, it is a feasible and productive approach to NN.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>This debate is often messed up, however, because there are still
extreme egalitarians (or, to put it less charitably economic ignoramuses)
running around who think it’s unfair for there to be any differences in
resource allocation based on ability to pay, and there are even some who think it’s
an evil capitalist conspiracy to make anyone have to pay for anything. (I no
longer waste time with debates like that, I had my share on the sidewalks of
college campuses in the 1970s. ;-)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
On the notion of <b>Public Internet</b> : in many respects, the global Internet
could be qualified as a "<b>common pool resource</b>" as defined in
the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The
framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder
model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list).<br>
<br>
Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of
Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international
arrangements that could give the Internet a <b>legal status analogous to what
is used for international canals, waterways or straits</b> : right of free
harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments)
towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar
paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are
very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring.
Comments welcome. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque <<a
href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com">gpaque@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>This
discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting
points:<br>
<br>
Internet:<br>
<br>
Public Internet:<br>
<br>
Internet as a public good:<br>
<br>
Net Neutrality:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><br>
On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is
useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet,
or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services
for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet
before we pursue IG. <br>
<br>
Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>