<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 29 October 2012 10:39 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:508EB864.7090400@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana">snip</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:508EB864.7090400@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Verdana"> US citizens perhaps have a vote between no net
neutrality (elect Romney) or weak version of net neutrality,
that doesnt extend to mobiles (re-elect Obama), but for the
others less fortunate, international norms in this area are
something that may be among the few positive hopes to clutch to.
Getting Internet's transport layer out of the definition of
telecom would basically set a norm that will soon travel
downwards to the national levels</font><font face="Verdana">, of
course on the wings of the powerful multi national telecoms, </font><font
face="Verdana">to challenge the remit and authority of national
telecom regulators to enforce any kind of net neutrality. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
See the article below to know what kind of game this non regulation
business is headed towards. <br>
<br>
While one of the principle victims of this game will be net
neutrality, it is a tribute to the virtuosity with which the so very
powerful play this game that with the ETNO strawman (a proposal that
never had a chance) they have been successful to get even the net
neutrality brigade on their side in the ITU-ITR saga, to seek
exclusion of all aspects of the Internet from definition of telecom,
something which, to repeat, will soon the principal weapon that will
be used to fight net neutrality. <br>
<br>
Parminder
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="4">'Internet
Freedom'?
AT&T's Verbal Jujitsu to Close Down Telecommunications
in America
<br>
<br>
<a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/internet-freedom-att_b_1869358.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/internet-freedom-att_b_1869358.html</a><br>
<br>
....
AT&T has reached new heights of hubris with the <a
href="https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/83112att.pdf"
target="_hplink">letter
they submitted to the FCC</a> on August 30, 2012. AT&T's
plan is
to remove all regulations and obligations and they are doing
this
with a trick; the Internet is an 'information service' which
does not
have the obligations of a 'telecommunications' service -- and
they
are proposing to make everything regulated as the Internet. This
means that almost all of the remaining wires, networks or even
the
obligation to offer services over those wires and networks are
all
removed -- as much of this infrastructure is classified as
"telecommunications". The Public Switched Telephone
Networks, the utility, would suddenly be reclassified as an
information service. Sayonara any telco rules, regulations and
oh
yes, your rights. Your service breaks... tough. Prices go up and
there's no direct competition -- too bad. Networks weren't
upgraded
-- so what. Net Neutrality? Neutered.</font></p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:508EB864.7090400@itforchange.net" type="cite"><font
face="Verdana"> <br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 29 October 2012 06:40 PM,
Paul Wilson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:192D7FFF-B92C-4825-95C8-EB8B8353448F@apnic.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks Parminder for a mostly interesting statement, also to Carlos for the useful comments.
Regarding part 3, whether it's a case of division or composition, it is really essential to be clear on the layers under discussion.
In the TCP/IP model, we have layers called Link, Internet (Network in OSI), Transport, and Application. The Internet layer corresponds to the IP protocol, and the Transport layer to the TCP protocol.
Does IT for Change really suggest that the TCP layer should be placed under the ITRs' remit, and if so, how and why?
On the other hand, it's fairly common to describe Layers 2 and 3 together (i.e. TCP/IP) as the Transport layer, and let's be clear that this layer *IS* the Internet.
It's essential to understand that the network at these layers did not "just happen" and cannot be taken for granted, as if it is stable and constant. Today's Internet - global, universal, open and neutral - is a direct product of and is maintained through the active management of this layer, and it certainly could change, very fundamentally, under a different approach.
I have to assume that IT for Change is not asking for TCP/IP to be managed under the ITRs, but Parminder, I suggest you need to clarify, because as it stands, this part of your position should definitely be the most controversial.
Paul.
On 29/10/2012, at 9:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Parm, a few quick comments below.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
On 10/29/2012 06:27 AM, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi All
IT for Change had prepared our initial response to the current ITRs
draft, and shared it with some civil society groups. Although the
following is written as an email based input to the proposed ITR
discussions at the BestBits civil society meeting, a version of it was
also shared with the Indian government. Thought may be useful to post it
here as well. parminder
(begins)
We see four sets of issues that are most important, and they are as
follows:
/1. State control over Internet routing system/
This is perhaps the single most controversial issue in the ITR debate,
even more than the ITU-ICANN issue discussed above. It is rightly feared
that ITRs will be used by authoritarian countries like China and Iran to
develop strict state control over the routing of Internet traffic which
today is globally ordered to a large extent. Earlier inputs of these
countries into the ITR draft were rather more explicit in this regard.
Even though rendered relatively bare-bone in the current draft, there is
significant text still there that can be used for a tightly controlled
Internet routing system, which if taken to its logical end can lead to
nation-wise balkanisation of the Internet.
In the current draft, it is the text pertaining to section 30 which
deals with this issue. Options range from 'states right to know which
routes are used', to 'states determining which routes are used', to
'imposing any routing regulation in this regard'. My proposal is to go
with one of the listed options which is to suppress section 30
altogether; so, no language on this issue at all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Entirely agree. However, this is already done by certain countries independently of ITU's or any other international agreement, and will continue to happen.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">/2. ITU and CIRs management/
One of the most important issues is whether ITU is seeking to, and vide
the ITRs be enabled to, take up the functions being performed by the
distributed CIR management system as it exists at present. In the
current draft, section 31 A is of crucial import in this regard of ITU's
feared encroachment of the remit of the ICANN plus system . The options
in the current draft regarding this section range from 'naming,
numbering, addressing and identification resources will not be mis-used'
and 'assigned resources would only be used for the agreed purposes' to
'all ITU recommendations will apply to naming, numbering, addressing and
identification resources' (existing or also future ??) to 'nation
states, if they elect to, can control these resources within their
territories for the sake of international communication'.
If ITU recommendations are made vide the new ITRs to apply to names and
numbering systems, this may tend towards a creeping encroachment on
ICANN's remit. One option in the current draft lists a set of specific
ITU recommendations that will apply (these need to be studied
individually which I havent). Other options are more open ended, which
means future ITU recommendations may also apply, which, may mean that
ITU can formally enter into doing and/or supervising ICANN's work. This
becomes more problematic when seen along with draft options that make
ITRs obligatory and not just a set of general principles. We should
speak up against all such efforts to take over, or even substantially
affect, the current distributed system of CIRs management.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I think there is overall consensus that the current names and numbers management system, despite its enormous mishaps (e.g, the recent problems in launching new gTLDs) and a "pluralist" governance which is biased towards the domain name business is currently operationally sound and should not be replaced. If we want a single example of ITU's lousy meddling into the domain name realm, just review the ENUM fiasco. Instead, we have to continue to press ICANN and its contractor (the USG) for true pluralist internationalization -- a major challenge clearly recognized by the new CEO, Fadi Chéadé.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">/3. Definitional issues in the ITRs; telecom or Internet/
Resolving this issue might take a good amount of out time. The issue is
really tricky. Putting Internet under telecom, and thus under ITRs and
ITU has its problems and a completely new kind of global regulatory
system may then be built over it, which would hurt the way Internet has
developed and needs to develop. However, it is also difficult to just
argue that, when we are in times we are in, Internet traffic will be
excluded from telecom definition, because that would beg the question -
what then remains of telecommunicaiton in the era of increased IP based
convergence. Is then ITU to close down as traditional telephony
disappears. Perhaps more importantly, correspondingly, does this new
definitional approach also mean that national level telecom regulatory
systems like FCC and TRAI wind up sooner or later.
We dont think we can afford to be co-opted into the efforts seeking
complete deregulation of the entire communications systems that, for
instance, are at present being made in the US, which employ
definitional logics of a highly dubious kind (like classifying Internet
not as a telecommunication but as an information service and thus not
subject to common carriage or net neutrality provisions, and similarly
rescuing VoIP services from universal service obligations.) At the same
time, it is necessary to resist providing constitutional basis to the
ITU which can be used to for control of content and application layers.
This is the dilemma. What would the implications of putting Internet
under telecommunications in the definitional and other sections? What
does adding 'processing' signals to just sending, transporting and
receiving signals does to what happens in the future vis a vis ITU's
role? (These are all existing optional language in the current draft.)
This is something we really may have to spend a lot of time on. Our
tentative suggestion is that we find a way whereby the transport /
infrastructural layer is included in the definition of telecommunication
(which also is closest to reality) and thus in ITR's remit. At the same
time content and application layers are explicitly excluded.
Contributing the right language in this respect may be one of the most
important things that we can do. But as I said, this requires a lot of
thinking and discussion among us.
In trying any such definitional separations, the issue of 'security'
would become a sticking point. In fact, 'security' may be an issue we
may have to separately treat in our submission, becuase there is also a
lot of tricky language in the current draft around this issue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">The Internet is *composed* of layers, not *divided into* layers. This is crucial. If the telcos take over transport and routing, its consequences propagate to the upper layers, negatively affecting content providers, local Internet service providers, and above all the final users -- it will certainly be another kind of Internet.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">/4. Net neutrality or an open Internet
/We should certainly speak against the ETNO proposal of a 'sender pays'
arrangement. However, we should seek to go beyond it. Everywhere it is
recognised that net neutrality is a regulatory issue. Net neutrality
cannot survive with regulatory intervention, or at least some kind of
normative soft pressure from regulatory quarters. So if there is an
issue called 'global net neutrality' (CoE's experts report) then there
is perhaps some role for a global regulatory system - if not of
enforceable rules, at least for providing normative frameworks and
general principles. And net neutrality concerns the transport layer, net
neutrality concerns can be accommodated even while we do the above
mentioned 'definitional separations' about what part of the Internet is
telecom and which not.
While even US telecoms are opposed to the ETNO proposal (for reasons
one can appreciate) what they themselves propose in the US is the sender
pays principle. Is it possible to use the ITR text in some way to
promote a normative framework for net neutrality or an open Internet -
or even more specific things like open peering and the such.
I read in the CDT's document about problems with use of QoS term which
can become the normative indication for violation of net neutrality and
it should be opposed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">In Brazil the Ministry of Communications works in partnership with the telcos to remove the net neutrality concept from the Civil Framework for the Internet currently submitted to Congress. This is seen as part of the "freedom package" telcos are trying to push along the lines of "sender party pays" and the freedom to meddle with (and arbitrarily charge for) packet traffic.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">/5. Some sundry issues
/Apart the issue of 'security' mentioned above, which may require
separate treatment, I can see two other important issues. One, whether
ITRs should stay as general principles or they should become mandatory.
These is alternative language in the current draft on these option. I
think we should seek that ITRs stay as general principles. Second, if
the principal parties that are subject to ITRs should remain
'administrations' or be changed to 'member states and operating
agencies'. I think the telecom environment has become complex and
diverse enough to require the more flexible term 'operating agencies' to
be included.
(ends)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">frt rgds
--c.a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dg@apnic.net"><dg@apnic.net></a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apnic.net">http://www.apnic.net</a> +61 7 3858 3100
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>