<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<pre wrap="">>NN may boil down to terms and provision
>of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd
>encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of
>requirements you may think of.</pre>
<br>
I agree, Mawaki.<br>
<br>
Just to set the ball rolling, I would suggest two simple points.<br>
<br>
Any telecom provider will provide the public Internet<br>
<br>
1. at the same cost (or less) than any other IP based service provided
by it<br>
<br>
2. at the same (or better) QoS (quality of service) as any other IP
service provided by it (though universally agreed differentiations of
QoS between 'types' of applications - like video, voice etc may be
allowed). VPNs can be exempt from this conditions. <br>
<br>
Point 2, which I think will be more contested, is similar to the
principal 3 of Norway's NN agreement which is enclosed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Principle 3<br>
Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of
discrimination<br>
with regard to type of application, service or content or based on
sender or<br>
receiver address.<br>
This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual
data streams that<br>
use the basic Internet service.<br>
But it does not mean that the principle precludes traffic management
efforts on an<br>
operator’s own network to block activities that harm the network,
comply with orders<br>
from the authorities, ensure the quality of service for specific
applications that require<br>
this, deal with special situations of temporary network overload or
prioritise traffic on<br>
an individual user’s connection according to the user’s wishes.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
(ends)<br>
<br>
In fact why should we, as the IGC, not adopt a simplified version of
the Norway's NN agreement and present it at the IGF, expressing concern
about the creeping encroachment on NN principle vis a vis the mobile
Internet. Does anyone fnd anything wrong with the Norway's NN agreement.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 21 August 2010 06:25 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik30MSLGdqrVkcBbL5HpZ-aBv83vx92zC59jSBb@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Karl,
I think the suggestion in the second part of your message need to be
taken up. As you may remember, I myself have recently suggested in
another discussion thread that NN may boil down to terms and provision
of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd
encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of
requirements you may think of. However, I will urge you (in fact for
me, this is a prerequisite for the discussion to proceed in a
meaningful manner) to provide for each one of the technical
characteristics in technical terms and acronyms an explaining
formulation for a broader social consumption and discourse. That would
further enable the discussion you're calling for, and minimize the
otherwise justified criticism that these processes are taken over by
technical experts (when it's not by big corporations) at the expense
of democracy.
I see IGC as an autonomous body, not merely an appendix to IGF or
something. If we can have a substantive discussion and agree on the
basic level characteristics for a public internet service, nothing
prevents us from releasing a position paper/statement and promoting it
in this NN debate.
Mawaki
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Karl Auerbach <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:karl@cavebear.com"><karl@cavebear.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Another thing - We've talked a lot over the last few days about net
neutrality.
It is my sense that when the fur stops flying that we will be in a regime in
which there is some sort of non-discriminatory base carriage of packets and
tiers of higher grade (and higher cost) service.
But nobody has set down what those service levels might be, either in terms
of what a local, edge ISP would have to deliver, or what might be required
end-to-end across a sequence of providers.
For example, a base level service might have characteristics such as:
- No discrimination on packet size, content, or IP address source or
destination.
- Best effort, with routers limited to certain defined queue policies,
such as weighted or unweighted fair queueing, tail drop, various forms of
RED.
- Delay not to exceed N milliseconds (on some sort of average) with jitter
not to exceed M milliseconds (with some defined algorithm to express
jitter).
- Path MTU of at least 1500 bytes.
etc etc.
A higher level (which might be included in the baseline) would further
constrain delay and/or jitter to better support VoIP.
There could be defined levels of non-neutrality, such as the preference for
DNS packets that I mentioned the other day.
If these service levels and definitions were created consumers (and larger
entities) could engage in real discussions with providers about what is
actually being provided. And providers would understand what they need to
deliver.
The ITU has some work, G.1050, to characterize internet packet carriage
behaviour. Although I have some problems with some of the burst algorithms
used in that specification, I believe that G.1050 perhaps could be used as
a baseline for discussion.
Nobody else in the constellation of internet governance actors is doing this
sort of thing - yet is seems to me that that kind of work would be rather
useful to users and providers. Were the IGF to pick up the baton and run
with it the other "stakeholders" would have no grounds to complain and could
only try to catch up.
Moreover, I believe that by focusing for a while on more technical matters
that the emotional differences would be reduced it would be relatively easy
to make visible progress.
--karl--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>