[IRPCoalition] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote posponed !

[Steve Anderson]

If anyone is interested in Net Neutrality policy in Canada there's a report
we put together here: http://openmedia.ca/plan

best,

--
*Steve Anderson*
Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca
604-837-5730
http://openmedia.ca <http://www.openmedia.ca/>
steve at openmedia.ca

Follow me on Twitter <http://twitter.com/Steve_Media>
Friend me on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/Steve.Media>


* *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates.
<http://demandchoice.ca>*

**Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->>
OurFairDeal.org <http://OurFairDeal.org>*



*Confidentiality Warning:*

* This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use
of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return
e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank
you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout
fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de
ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une
information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le
destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie,
distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y
est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire
prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel
et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.*


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Luca Belli <lucabelli at hotmail.it> wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
>
> As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted
> issue.
>
> The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious
> consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control.
> One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF
> workshop 340 “*Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms*” is that
> the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full enjoyment of
> end-users’ human rights, on media pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And
> these consequences are particularly amplified when Internet users are
> marginalised people who are not able to organise themselves and get their
> voice heard by policy-makers.
>
>
> The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a
> Report on “*The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow*”
> that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing
> particularly on human rights issues. The report is available here:
> http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0
>
> By all means, comments are more than welcome.
>
>
> Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality,
> transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the
> contribution on “A Discourse Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in
> the DC NN report). The elaboration of the model framework was initiated and
> has been stimulated by the Council of Europe that stressed the need for a
> model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE
> Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model has
> been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent,
> inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to
> the CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks.
>
>
> What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory
> traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of
> Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the
> hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due
> process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should be
> one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April.
>
>
> I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is the
> choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to the
> Internet or mere information recipients.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Luca
>
> *Luca Belli <http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/luca-belli/24/20/1a4>*
> *Doctorant en Droit Public*
> *CERSA,**Université **Panthéon-Assas*
> *Sorbonne University <http://www.sorbonne-universites.fr/#KLINK>*
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100
> > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> > From: jefsey at jefsey.com
> > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed !
> >
> > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial
> > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia,
> > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all
> > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed
> > >in Brasilia right now....
> > >
> > >
> http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm
> >
> > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined.
> > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly
> > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to".
> > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever
> > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of
> > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are
> > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this
> > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles:
> >
> > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may
> > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the
> > disparities between customers and traffic levels.
> > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be)
> > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the
> > advantages to the "most favored partner" .
> >
> > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides
> > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among
> > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as
> > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not
> > the case if:
> >
> > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non
> > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or
> > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its
> > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a
> > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated
> > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
> >
> > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from
> > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides
> > you an internet link
> > that
> > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with
> > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is
> > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust.
> >
> > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special
> > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation.
> >
> > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the
> > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT
> > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of
> > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently
> > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the
> > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do
> > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements
> > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education,
> > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal
> > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international
> > networking space (InterNet).
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131112/ee8fd30a/attachment.htm>