<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
Carlos and Paul,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response. <br>
<br>
First of all, let me say that our, IT for Change's, real view on
this matter is that new ITRs should have been a part of a larger
look at how Internet works and what is necessary to be done in
terms of its governance in public interest, more so from the
viewpoint of those who are currently marginalised, whose interests
we seek to espouse. This was, and is, necessary now, since
Internet is no longer the 'interesting new thing' that it was
10-15 years ago. It is today a defining force shaping our
societies, our social structures, and its power relationships. We
at IT for Change, and our partner networks, are unable to satisfy
ourselves that the way Internet has grown and shaped in the last
few years is the best way for it to go, in terms of economic and
social justice. It is increasingly causing a greater rather than
lesser concentration of power, which trend is, in our view, not
only possible to check, it is our collective duty to do so. <br>
<br>
Coming back to Internet governance, </font><font face="Verdana">over
the last few years </font><font face="Verdana">we should have
beendiscussing (rather than stalling such discussions) what part
of the Internet needs what kind of governance - which is just,
democratic, pluralistic etc. Not that we would have immediately
come to the perfect solution, but we would have been closer to it,
and, we would have have been closer to having a better
understanding, perhaps even some degree of consensus, regarding
what should go into the ITRs and what should not. Having a
discussion on whether telecom regulators should have jurisdiction
over transport aspects of the Internet or not 5 days before public
comments into the ITU process closes is not the best way to be
dealing with this issue. I do believe, for instance, that ITR
amendments should have accompanied some kind of an agreement with
everyone accepting the appropriateness and legitimacy of the
current distributed system of DNS and technical standards
management of the Internet, with perhaps a statement of a few
general principles on the areas in which further evolutionary
improvements need to be sought. The CIRs oversight issue needs to
be resolved, at least discussed with all sincerity, at another
level, and so also the issues of broader Internet related public
policies, the mandate of OECD's CICCP and the proposed mandate of
CIRP. All of this should be a kind of one package, because what we
do in one place is linked to what is done or not done in another.
<br>
<br>
Instead of taking such an holistic, and allow me to say, sincere,
approach, what actually is sought be done is to treat ITR
amendments as a kind of ugly emergency that needs to be given a
fire-fighting response, and soon, when the fires are doused, we
can be back to the merry neoliberal times of unbridled growth and
shaping of the Internet in a manner that further entrenches
existing power, without any kind of public interest oversight or
intervention. <br>
<br>
Sorry for the lengthy disclaimer, but it was necessary for it to
be stated to frame my response to the immediate issue at hand;
whether any part of the Internet (meaning here the transport/
infrastructural) should to be within ITU's remit of not.<br>
<br>
For us, the basic question that we need to address here is; Is the
availability a net neutral Internet to be considered just as a
normal commercial service or good, subject to normal laws of
commerce alone, or is it to be considered at a special level, as a
guaranteed, universal service (which is free, subsidized etc when
required), and whose qualities, like net neutrality, and other
kinds, just have to be maintained, and if needed, will be enforced
through a special dedicated system, as for instance telecom
regulators do for telecom. <br>
<br>
How we proceed further depends on what response we give to this
question. I know Milton's response to this question, but for
others who think that Internet is not just like any other
commercial good, and its basic availability and nature (net
neutrality etc) has to be ensured, we then have to decide that
either this is ensured by the existing telecom regulators, or we
set up a new Internet regulatory authority.<br>
<br>
At this stage, we can make a distinction between the Internet as a
basic infrastructure, which, I think requires the above
protection, and its content and application layers where the
barrier to entry, competition dynamics are 'normally' of a
qualitatively different kind. This is why the content and
applications layers should be kept out of the regulatory purview.
<br>
<br>
And if indeed the transport/ infrastructural layer of the Internet
needs to be regulated, now with increasing IP based convergence,
since telecom regulator soon will have little non IP based
infrastructure to regulate, it goes to reason that they regulate
the transport layer of the Internet, which definitionally
continues to be considered as telecom (which in fact as per
existing definitions in the existing ITRs, and not only in ITRs
but as per telecom statutes in most countries, is does indeed
already count as telecom).<br>
<br>
For those who want ITU not to have remit over the transport/
infrastructural layer of the Internet, the question is; do they
also want national level telecom regulators to not have anything
to do with even with the transport part of the Internet. This
would so much delight the telecom companies. In the US, they are
fighting</font><font face="Verdana"> precisely</font><font
face="Verdana"> this case against FCC's rulings on net neutrality,
and I recently heard a guy from a telecom association in India
mutter something to a similar effect. <br>
<br>
There will be no net neutrality without a regulator for the
Internet's transport layer. I think this much is understood by all
net neutrality supporters. And there will be no universal service
obligations, cross subsidisation for under served regions etc. We
have to indeed be careful about what we ask at the ITU's ITR
discussions, because the chickens will soon come home to roost, at
the national level, whereby we would have perhaps permanently
compromised possibilities of public interest regulation over the
transport layer of the Internet, including any possibility of
ensuring net neutrality. <br>
<br>
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>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a 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 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</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="">
________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dg@apnic.net"><dg@apnic.net></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apnic.net">http://www.apnic.net</a> +61 7 3858 3100
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>