Hi Fouad, Lee, Parminder,<br><br>Let's imagine for a minute a new topic, dubbed "road neutrality".<br>It would cover:<br>- keeping all roads in adequate conditions for all offered traffic,<br>- defining driving rules,<br>
- managing agents and systems assigned to traffic regulation,<br>- controlling cargo legality, and<br>- insuring its delivery just in time.<br><br>Would that be a good cause, specially in developing countries ?<br>But doesn't it look like NN ?<br>
<br>Trying to get some influence needs first to identify the power centers in a position to make (tolerate, allow, drive) changes. For networks there are legislators, operators, content providers, ISPs, and to some extent the media and the users.<br>
<br>Vertical integration of operator, content provider and ISP roles is loaded with risks of unfair competition. Then it's none of a specific network issue, commerce legislation can handle that.<br> <br>Content inspection, however questionable it may be, should be dealt with at national level, normally defined by legislators.<br>
<br>A solid bone of contention is financing network infrastructures. Why would competing operators chip in and let dominant content providers reap the profits ? This is a typical trade issue, raised mostly between major international stakeholders. Should discrete negotiations fail, it may land on WTO's table. <br>
<br>A small to medium developing country cannot muster much weight against dominant transborder operators and content providers. Nor can she set the international regulatory scene. What's left is the national or regional level, which may become exemplary for other countries to follow.<br>
<br>The old game still prevails, clay pot against iron pot.<br>- - -<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:45 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">Hi Lee</font><div class="im"><br>
<br>
On Saturday 16 April 2011 04:10 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Fouad,
The good or bad news, depending upon one perspective, is that this issue will not really be 'settled' for years and years.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Bad news, because, as Lessig said, 'architecture is policy' and if
the architecture is already made and well developed by default,
there wont be much that policy can do long after. Hence the urgency
in the matter from a developing country point of view. <br><div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>So there is plenty of time for other nations to consider and weigh their interests, and views. Especially since the moral imperative underlying the discussion, fairness in treating others, is I believe commonly held in all cultures since ancient times.
That is, if there is a ferry which may take you across a river, everyone knows the ferry must let you board, if you pay the fee.
Only problem is determining the moral equivalent on the Internet is subject to more interpretations.
Whereas in ancient times, if the ferryman would not let you on board, even though you were prepared to pay just like anyone else, you would beat him. People, and ferry operators, figured out thousands of years ago - it is best if anyone can get on.
Giving ATT or anyone else the same kind of beat down for a violation of the Internet equivalent - is a bit harder. </pre>
</blockquote></div>
A very important question to ask. Where does the coercive power to
ensure public interest based compliance lie. It used to lie with the
nation states but with globalization, global capital escapes these
controls by playing one state against the other, and developed
country states against developing country ones. Whereby, even if by
the logic of domestic pulbic interest NN is clearly important, this
imperative has to be wieghed against the huge global economic
advantage and benefits that developed country based global digital
corporates bring for these countries. Developing country
governments, on the other hand, have little political leverage over
these global corporates. Try to regulate them in public interest,
and they will abandon the country in a matter of days. <br>
<br>
This is 'the' key political issue in a globalised world, more so for
the inherently global phenomenon of the Internet. And the only
adequate response to it that comes to my mind is working towards
stronger (democratic) global political institutions. Starting with
framing global norms for NN would be a good thing to do in this
regard. <br><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder <br></font><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>
Lee
________________________________________
From: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com" target="_blank">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:33 PM
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance?
That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US
centric NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit
quietly and wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules
are set for the rest to follow.
NN seems to be a no go area or no discuss issue for the developing
world and thats where the primary questions arises to how can
developing regions take on this debate because the neutrality of the
network is as important for them and their sustainability too.
The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is
authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that.
-- FoO
<br></pre></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>