<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 14 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
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;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.emailstyle19
{mso-style-name:emailstyle19;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
color:black;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle32
{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:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Michael Kende, of AnalysisMason and the author of two reports that I referred to in my earlier blogpost replied to the message that I sent to the Governance e-list, but since he isn't a subscriber it didn't appear on the list and he has asked me to ensure that it is circulated to the IGC. My apologies to him and to you that this is coming late--it rather got caught up in my work/travel first in central Africa and then at the IGF.<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'>My reply to his comments can be found on the orginal blogpost @ <a href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/</a> (note that my own thinking on this has now evolved somewhat based in part on the interaction with Michael and others on the blogsite, the BestBits meeting, the IGF, the various discussions on various lists on the WCIT and the interactions on this list in the last couple of days.<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 to all,<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'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Michael Kende <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:30 PM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein; <a href="mailto:ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a>; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:peter@hellmonds.net">peter@hellmonds.net</a>; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Mike,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Many thanks for providing a wider audience for the debate started on the ISOC mailing list – if this email does not automatically post to the new list, as well as your blog, I would appreciate your forwarding it on my behalf. I would like to raise several comments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>First, the first of the two papers that you link to below (“Driving broadband Africa”) was written by my two colleagues Robert Schumann and Roz Roseboro in our Johannesburg office, and was written as part of our research program, and not on behalf of any clients.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Second, I began to work on internet interconnection issues in the late 1990s, when I was at the US Federal Communications Commission and led the teams reviewing the mergers of the large Internet backbones at the time, including MCI and WorldCom. As a result of that work, I wrote an FCC working paper, entitled “The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones”, in which I explain the market dynamics of Internet interconnection and why the unregulated system was working and appropriate – the paper was released in 2000, and can be found here: <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/working-papers/digital-handshake-connecting-internet-backbones">http://www.fcc.gov/working-papers/digital-handshake-connecting-internet-backbones</a>. At that time, the issue of cost-sharing for international interconnection had already been raised in a number of countries, notably in Asia-Pacific, and in my paper I analyzed the arguments and concluded that it would not be appropriate to regulate international interconnection. Having reviewed the incredible changes and growth in the Internet since then, my analysis and conclusions remain consistent. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Third, with respect to the recommendations on promoting network infrastructure in the current paper (“Internet global growth”) which you cited below, I would like to clarify that I have worked for telecom regulators and Ministries in a number of developing countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, all interested in how to promote convergence – both network infrastructure and over-the-top services, and have consistently delivered the recommendations that I provided in this paper. I have also been invited to present on these topics to the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and the ITU, and have delivered the same message.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Finally, I had responded to the original ISOC thread in order to contribute to the discussion, and look forward to continuing these discussions including contributions from a wide variety of authors and viewpoints. Please do let me know if you come across any or if you have any questions or comments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Michael<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> michael gurstein [<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:38 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net">ciresearchers@vancouvercommunity.net</a>; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:peter@hellmonds.net">peter@hellmonds.net</a>; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Michael Kende<br><b>Subject:</b> The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Note, this flows from a discussion that initially took place on a listserve sponsored by ISOC on Internet Policy. I've changed the subject line here and I've copied the others involved in this thread (I'm not sure if they are or are not subbed to the Community Informatics or the governance lists) but I know that they all have a deep knowledge and interest in this subject. I'm also putting all of this below up on my blog <a href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com">http://gurstein.wordpress.com</a> where those with an interest might wish to carry forward this discussion.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The extended discussion is probably only for those with an interest in Internet Governance issues and particularly as they apply to the regulatory regimes (and policy stances) of Less Developed Countries and I would point those with such an interest to research papers prepared by Michael Kende of the consulting firm AnalysysMason on behalf of Amazon, AT&T, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Google, Intel, Juniper Networks, Microsoft, National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), News Corporation, Oracle, Telefónica, Time Warner Cable, Verisign, and Verizon. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>specifically:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/ISOC%20WCIT%20statements%20&%20resources/Analysys_Mason_RDRK0_driving_broadband_Africa_Dec2011%20copy.pdf">https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/ISOC%20WCIT%20statements%20&%20resources/Analysys_Mason_RDRK0_driving_broadband_Africa_Dec2011%20copy.pdf</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>and</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Press-releases1/Internet-global-growth-PR-Sept2012/?bp=http%3a%2f%2fwww.analysysmason.com%2fSearch%2f%23query%3dglobal%2binternet%2bgrowth%26access%3dAll+content">http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Press-releases1/Internet-global-growth-PR-Sept2012/?bp=http%3a%2f%2fwww.analysysmason.com%2fSearch%2f%23query%3dglobal%2binternet%2bgrowth%26access%3dAll+content</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I should say that both of these reports are very interesting and contain a wealth of good information, however, the problem that I have with them and particularly the second report is that it so clearly starts off with its policy conclusion and builds a case to support this. This is not an area of particular expertise for me as I indicate in my comments in the below but my gut is that the conclusions as to the appropriate policy regime for Less Developed Countries (the apparent target for the second policy report from Michael Kende) would look quite different if it was done from/by folks from LDC's rather than sponsored as Kende's report was by Google, Cisco, Amazon, Microsoft and so on and so on.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I'm not exactly sure what the LDC sponsored report would say but my guess would be that they would focus rather more on looking at how costs and benefits are and should be distributed as between some of the wealthiest companies from some of the wealthiest countries and LDC's looking to increase Internet access overall in environments of very low incomes, very difficult physical environments, extremely weak regulatory and taxation regimes, and vast areas and populations who might under some circumstances derive benefit from Internet access but who would under almost any conceivable current situation find paying for this almost impossible.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>My hunch is that they wouldn't start out with indicating as the number one recommendation of the report -- the basic point of the overall report from what I can see -- the overwhelming importance of</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Promoting network infrastructure:</span></u></b><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> (by a) Focus on increasing investments throughout the network, from mobile broadband access through national and cross-border connectivity and IXPs, by removing roadblocks to lower the cost of investment, including allocating spectrum for mobile broadband or limiting licensing requirements and fees, in order to promote competitive entry and growth.</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>From what I am seeing (and Kende's report is as good a signal as any) the Internet biggies are running a bit scared (the term "moral panic" comes to mind) as to what "madness" might come out of the WCIT meeting that the ITU is hosting in December in Dubai. And they are pulling out all the stops in trying to derail any real discussion on how the costs and benefits might be allocated of improving/extending Internet access in and into LDC's and within LDC's to the other 99% or so in those countries who currently have no possible means of access. This is of course because the ITU as the traditional venue for global telecom "governance" includes among its 195 or so Member States a very goodly proportion, probably a majority, who are currently experiencing net costs (including many regimes who see these costs in terms of lost political control) from Internet access and paticularly if attempts at extending access to rural and maginalized populations are taken into consideration, rather than net benefits and not surprisingly they are looking at ways of righting that balance.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And so instead of actually sitting down and trying to figure out a global regime for Internet (and possibly other) governance, that might in some sense lead to an equitable distribution of costs and benefits the biggies are launching verbal, research and whatever types of broadsides infinite amounts of money, easy access to expertise and the current ascendance of neo-libertarian (anti-State, anti-tax) ideology can muster.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I myself am of two minds on this issue. I well recognize the value/benefits that could flow from Internet access even to the poorest of the poor and the overwhelming benefits that Internet access provides to those for example in civil society who can take advantage of its more or less unlimited free flow of communications and information (including through undermining various repressive political regimes). On the other hand, the unlimited unregulated policy environment advocated by reports like that of Kende and others of that ideological ilk would I think, lead almost directly to a further enrichment of the already stupendously wealthy and overall a signifcant transfer of wealth and benefit from those with the least to those with the most.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The challenge I think is to recognize both of the above as equally likely/possible outcomes. This implies the need to design and implement a global regime which ensures the possibility of universal access to the benefits of the Internet while ensuring that the provision of these opportunities does not further enmiserate those currently least able to obtain these benefits at least in part by destroying the means by which such possible access to benefits could through public intervention, regulation and yes, even taxation ensure that such a possibility of benefits can be translated into actuality. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mike</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#999999'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#999999'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><br clear=all></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#999999'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#999999'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#999999'>This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. <br><br>Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email <a href="mailto:enquiries@analysysmason.com">enquiries@analysysmason.com</a> or visit <a href="http://www.analysysmason.com">www.analysysmason.com</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#999999'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div></div></body></html>