<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: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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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.E-MailFormatvorlage17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Wolfgang, <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'>Operators already have and use the capabilities of DPI to distinguish between different services. So, yes, this presumably would be used even more with different service classes. As long as this is done content-agnostic, and packets simply analysed to prioritize certain traffic over other, without any storage or further analysis, then human rights should not be affected. But you never know how this would be handled in countries with a less than stellar human rights record overall. My opinion is that as long as there is sufficient competition amongst operators, so that the end user can pick and chose, then the average user will continue to select a service plan with an operator who will offer the current “best effort” Internet service, whereas some – let’s say, an automobile manufacturer who wants to do online design in real time between different locations – would chose a business or platinum service to assure not just best effort, but 99.9999999% availability and speed etc.<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'>Commercial agreements in a free and fair marketplace should be no problem, as long as there is sufficient competition and user choice. However, we should still analyse the long-term systemic effects that such introduction of user or service classes would have.<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'>Bill,<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 suggested wording of the EU proposal sounds good so far, especially the text of the annex proposing the EU positions, and in particular these two articles:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>(c) Support proposals that seek to ensure that the revised ITRs remain high level, strategic and<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>technology neutral and oppose proposals to make ITU recommendations binding on ITU<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>member states and operating agencies;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>(d) Support any proposals to maintain the current scope of the ITRs and the current mandate<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'>of the ITU, oppose any proposals to extend the scope to areas such as the routing of Internetbased<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>traffic, content-related issues;<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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>(c) is particularly important, as there are proposals in the draft to make ITU recommendations binding. Having the EU (and hopefully CEPT) oppose such wording should be helpful. Also helpful should be support to keep ITRs on a high level, not on the details of regulation.<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'>(d) is in line with general consensus that ITU should not expand on its mandate to include the Internet, and should stick to its mandate of telecommunications.<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'>Closer reading and comparison of the EU treaty (and subsequent common legislation stemming therefrom) with the proposed ITR changes should shed further light on this, but I have no yet begun doing such an analysis and would hope that some Brussels-based business reps could do such analysis.<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'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Peter <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><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=DE style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Von:</span></b><span lang=DE style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>Im Auftrag von </b>William Drake<br><b>Gesendet:</b> 30 August 2012 15:43<br><b>An:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=DE><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>The EU has released an schematic position paper on the ITRs <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0430:FIN:EN:PDF">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0430:FIN:EN:PDF</a>. I leave it to expert speakers of Brusselsian to explain how the language on traffic prices based on commercial negotiations in a free and fair marketplace fits with the ETNO proposal. I've invited Luigi to speak in the CIR main session in Baku, so maybe we'll be able to probe this a little then if there's not been concrete pronouncements in the meanwhile…<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Bill<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any comments? <br><br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/</a><br><br>Wolfgang<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>