<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">Lee<br>
<br>
Thanks for the clarification, though I did read the news as it is
described by you. But yes, I should not have not said 'US congress
blocked it', it was neither the full congress, nor a conclusive
bocking. <br>
<br>
As for the right name for the proposed workshop, I have no problem
with either term as long as we are speaking of *blocking or
priortization of content on commercial considerations*, a
definition which despite many claims on this list to the contrary,
it quite clear and specific. FCC also used as this parametre as
the basic one. My problem is that a lot of people try to mix
freedom of expression issues with 'commercial considerations'
issue. Both of these are separately very important, but it is
difficult to conduct a discussion on NN or open Internet when FoE
issues keep getting thrown in into the same discussion. That is
all I want to make sure, that we have the discussion on the same
subject that FCC was discussing when it came out with its
guidelines on the issue. However, it is also relevant that
globally NN is the term that people most clearly recognise as
meaning traffic priortisation on commercial grounds. parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Saturday 09 April 2011 09:29 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE034AC996AC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Since Parminder wants to talk US domestic politics:
1st, the vote to repeal was just a House vote. The Senate has not taken action and likely won't so...House vote has no legal effect or consequence.
Though it does serve as a warning shot at FCC.
2nd, US courts tossed out a lawsuit filed by Verizon & Comcast if memory serves me well, against FCC Open Internet (their proper name) policies, last week, saying it was filed prematurely, since FCC hadn't completed and Federal Register hadn't yet published the rules. Still, it is safe to assume that the lawsuit will be refiled at earliest opportunity.
So, in US the push for and against net neutrality/open Internet is a step forward- step back kind of thing; with the consequential steps forward continuing at FCC, aided recently by the courts. The House vote in other words is political theater, of no effect other than to warn FCC their budget could be trimmed by House in future if they don't play ball with - House views.
Still most important in my ever-humble opinion: the actual FCC rules marching forward even while under attack from various quarters...are called Open Internet rules.
Because...that's what folks actually mean.
So I'm fine with a workshop on the topic; I just wish we could call it what we mean and not the smokescreen misnomer Google snookered the world into arguing about five years ago. Especially since Google cut its 'what? me worry about net neutrality? just kidding!' deal with Verizon last summer. But...if we must call it net neutrality even while discussing FCC's open Internet rules...well ok.
Lee
________________________________________
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>] On Behalf Of parminder [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:23 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed workshop text on CSTD and/or Indian proposal
While at it, it would not be appropriate if the IGC does not take note of the hottest public policy issue right now - that of net neutrality. The US congress yesterday blocked FCC's NN guidelines, which themselves were not good enough. In these political contestations, right now in front of our eyes, the Internet, and through it a world order, of the future is being shaped. (Dont say it is just a US matter; how much I wish US policies were just US matters.) So may be somethign like
'A possible framework for global Net Neutrality'
In addressing this issue we will be doing a specific positive contribution to global Internet policy regimes.
Important to note that Council of Europe is working on the issue of global net neutrality.
parminder
On Saturday 09 April 2011 06:09 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 08/04/2011, at 11:50 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
I just believe that we should carefully frame it, so that stakeholder representatives that do not necessarely agree with the proposal feel invited and encouraged to participate and put forth their arguments. During the CSTD WG meeting, the technical community and US opposed the proposal, but they did not say why.
I feel that we are gravitating towards a consensus on the more focused India/CSTD workshop proposal (in addition to the Mapping one), but here is some more nuanced language for the former, with changes underlined (anyone else, feel free to make your own suggestions):
Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0
As a participant in the CSTD's Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, the Government of India recently provided a set of "Proposed Improvements to IGF Outcomes, in Keeping with the UN General Assembly Mandate". Although only one stakeholder's proposal, the ten suggested improvements reflect proposals that some other countries and other stakeholder groups have also previously aired. It is also one of the only relatively comprehensive written proposals on IGF outcomes to emerge from the Working Group, and therefore provides a convenient starting point for further discussion.
It was suggested in the proposal that the MAG identify key questions for the IGF to deliberate upon, that a Working Group for each issue develop background material on it, to be considered by the IGF through workshops, a roundtable discussion, and possible inter-sessional meetings, and that discussion at the plenary level would result in an IGF report on each issue that would be transmitted to the CSTD and other relevant bodies for their action and feedback.
Since it was not possible for the CSTD Working Group to fully discuss these suggestions, this workshop is intended to provide a space to do so more fully. The workshop will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the merits of the proposals as well as their shortcomings, and consider whether and how to take such proposals forward.
--
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong
Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress">http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress</a>
Twitter #CICongress
Read our email confidentiality notice<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"><http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality></a>. Don't print this email unless necessary.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>