[bestbits] Re: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality

[parminder]

>
> On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are 
>> leaning towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to 
>> charge OTT players for prioritized network services, but will leave 
>> some other parts of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact.  Meanwhile 
>> in Europe, Commission vice president Neelie Kroes last week released 
>> proposals for major telecom reform aiming to create a single telecom 
>> market which include network neutrality provisions that would allow 
>> telcos to do much the same: they'd be able to differentiate their 
>> offers perhaps by speed and compete on enhanced quality of service.  
>> Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent throttling of traffic and 
>> blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc).
>>   Press release for the EC proposals 
>> <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm>, good summary 
>> <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm>
>>   If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in 
>> either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other 
>> country's to allow the same.

Also, all those pious statements that governments should not decide 
things in IG arena are much better directed at US and EU governments, 
instead of developing country governments who havent much to decide on 
with regard to global IG.... Who decided the new EU framework on net 
neutrality, or the US law and norms, which would be the global 
framework??? Let the MS-ists ask this of themselves, and then tell us.. 
This is the debate that needs to take place here...

This is real global Internet governance - and the Northern governments 
are doing it, completely on their own. Please turn your MS guns towards 
them, for whatever they are worth. And please  stop participating in 
their hypocrisy about preaching MSism to others, whom they desperately 
want to keep away from the table where  public policy decisions are 
taken for the whole world....

Let at least civil society people from developing countries take these 
wake up call.... It is in a very undemocratic way that the global 
governance of the Internet is being done today, and they are completely 
out of it.... No, just joining the MS chorus will not get you there, it 
simply plays in the hands to those who want to keep the Internet 
controls in their own hands. The global governance of the Internet needs 
to really be democratised..


parminder




>
>
> Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - 
> that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the 
> Internet by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political 
> dominance. Civil society has not been able to offer any response to 
> this patently anti democratic situation. Neither has the much touted 
> multistakeholder model any response to this situation.
>
> A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF 
> will be full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we 
> could not get one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me is 
> almost 'the' paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, there 
> were really a lot of proposals to get a main session on NN this year 
> but , at the Paris MAG consultations, I had the feeling that these 
> proposals were actively discouraged if not sabotaged by the powers 
> that be.... Perhaps MAG members can help us understand why we could 
> not get a main session on NN, when all kinds of sessions with vague 
> titles made the grade...
>
> This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on 
> procedural issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen preventing 
> the needed global discussions on real public policy issues.
>
> Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die seems 
> to have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these years IGC 
> has still not being able to get over arguing on things like - the 
> meaning of NN is not clear.... I consider it as a major failure of IGC 
> that we could do nothing, much less provide leadership, on this all 
> crucial IG issue.....
>
> parminder
>
>
>>   Adam
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130915/90bc09fd/attachment.htm>