<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Lock ins? What lock ins? </div><div><br></div><div>Go get input from industry and technologists, policy makers etc, write your own best practices and publish them. Possibly a bit more difficult than sitting around denying the right of any other person or organisation to publish theirs, though.</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 17-Nov-2012, at 14:41, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
Norbert's exposition of what is different with the Internet is
rather convincing. At the same time, as he also argues, there are
higher level principles that need to articulated, and articulated
now, before it is too late - like net neutrality (also well
defined by him). To this I will add the principle of universal
access as a right </font><font face="Verdana">(as Mike suggests)</font><font face="Verdana">, that must be assured to all. Such a right is more
necessary now then ever earlier with Internet being so essential
to mediating sociality today. <br>
<br>
At the same time as we remain circumspect of putting in too many
specific regulations, we as much need a space where the larger
social tectonics that the Internet has unleashed gets discussed,
and, importantly, from time to time, as required and appropriate,
norms, principles and if needed laws treaties, laws and regulation
get shaped. Such a space must be created in the UN system, with a
new-age structure which maximises democratic participation. It is
not ok, and I know I am saying this for the hundredth time, that
OECD, CoE and US gov does this kind of norm/ principles/ treaty/
law making, as happens today.<br>
<br>
The problem comes when we see the issue with the lock-ins that ITU
may put on the Internet's potential, but turn a completely blind
eye, or become fatalistic, about other lock-ins that are right now
being put on the Internet, especially in terms of its egalitarian
potential. This is where it begs a political economy explanation -
<i>whose interests are being protected/ promoted by whom</i>. This
is where it begins to suggest that the involved parties, including
civil society, are pursuing a one sided agenda, in cooperating
with the dominant economic forces of today. <br>
<br>
Such lock-ins come not only from things like OECD's recent
Internet policy principles, CoE's data protection treaty, and
Internet related features of ACTA, TPP kind of pluri-lateral
treaties, but also in numerous other ways of which we read almost
by the day in the newspapers. To give an idea of the rapidity with
which these monumental decisions are being taken on our behalf,
and our complete powerlessness in the face of them, I mention just
two that I read about in just the last few hour.....<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana"><a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/?smid=tw-nytimesbits&seid=auto">Apples
gets a patent for 'page turn'</a> in any e-reader device in
the US. Doesnt matter if software patents are not allowed in
most countries in the world. What matters is what US authorities
decide, and it would of course apply all over the world. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><font face="Verdana">Verizon and Time Warner have come
up with a<a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/16/3654302/verizon-time-warner-copyright-alert-system">
six strike rule</a> to throttle Internet, which measure they
claim is just for educational purposes. </font>And since
everyone here seems to agree that Internet should not be
regulated, no one can tell them not to do it; it is up to them how
they configure and offer their 'commercial' service. <br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
A little while back I also read how google demoted web pages in
its search result that are getting copyright violation alerts on
its automated alert registering system, even without checking who
has sent them and their veracity. Facebook is offering services to
promote content by those who pay them on Facebook pages of their
'friends' without demarcating paid/ promoted content from non-paid
one...... Path breaking stuff all of this, which is shaping the
global Internet in very basic ways, but we should just sit by and
watch.<br>
<br>
It may not only be ITU - or, rather, some countries through the
ITU - that may be intent on damaging the Internet, as we want to
see it to be. There are many others, and these latter ones have
been rather more successful at their enterprise. The issue of who
is going to stop them - and what global institutional mechanisms
are needed for that purpose - should</font><font face="Verdana">
bother us</font><font face="Verdana"> as much as stopping anything
adverse happening at the ITU. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, even ITU can be employed for some positive
purposes by getting high level principles like on universal
access, right to communicate and net neutrality into the ITRs and
other instruments of the ITU, while staying away from any kind of
close regulation that for instance the ETNO proposal sought. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 16 November 2012 01:14 AM,
Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20121115204446.3ae6c214@quill.bollow.ch" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Michael Gurstein <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><gurstein@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm sure this is naïve of me, but I'm wondering what the difference
(at the level of principle) might be between arguing as below, for
regulation (in support of the public interest) for an IP based
network through the FCC and arguing for regulation of "the
Internet" (in support of the public interest) at the WCIT/the ITU (as
per for example
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet</a>
-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/
(and please could we discuss this at the level of theory/principle
while avoiding US "exceptionalism"...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I would suggest that the main difference is that the classical telephony
network has a single, well-understood main purpose which is not changing
over time. This makes it possible to have meaningful regulation that
ties directly into this purpose.
By contrast, the Internet is designed to be useful quite generally
without tying it to any particular intended main purpose. As a
consequence, the Internet enables rapid innovation of new ways in which
it can be used. This fast evolution is a significant difference in
regard to practical feasibility of regulation. As a matter of
principle, it is not possible to effectively address by means
of regulation aspects can that change more quickly than the time
that it takes to change the regulations, except of course if people
are willing to accept regulation that significantly slows down the
pace of innovation.
There are still issues that are sufficiently fundamental and
therefore slow-changing that effective regulation is possible and in
fact highly desirable. For example, I'm all in favor of a strong network
neutrality principle which says that a company in the business of
transmitting Internet protocol datagrams may define its price structure
only in terms of properties of the service of transmitting these
datagrams. (This allows to distinguish between a basic "best effort"
service and a more expensive service with stronger QoS guarantees, but
disallows the various "profit maximization at the expense of the
integrity of the Internet" schemes.)
Greetings,
Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>