[bestbits] On "Technology Neutrality"

Fri Mar 6 20:43:31 EST 2015

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sending this again with a changed subject line; see text replied-in below.
>
> A couple of analyses of interest in this light, related to the example of WCIT:
> http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/13/35/
> http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/02/whats-really-up-at-the-wcit/

The second link has a specific section on Technology Neutrality.

> Seth
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of
>> "technology neutrality."  This is, at best, a sort of "last draft"
>> principle.  That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop
>> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the
>> technical ways of things.  Then once you understand the principle that
>> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while
>> generalizing it to be independent of technology.  But when you do so,
>> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is
>> often technical in effect.  Most often, especially when you hear it
>> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and
>> in international discussions, that often comes across as a
>> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would
>> want to push the point, huh?
>>
>> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle
>> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change.
>> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what
>> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its
>> implications are; or about how general the technology is.  In any
>> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term
>> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical
>> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much*
>> the issue, and you have to get that down.  *Before* you just accept
>> "let's be technology neutral."  And *before* you proceed to a sort of
>> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally
>> in order for it not to be about particular technologies.
>>
>> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says
>> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its
>> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen.
>>
>> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much
>> UN-related processes set terms in advance.  The implications for this
>> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are
>> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding
>> these international processes.
>>
>> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they
>> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope."  But note: 1) the US did
>> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect*
>> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up.  i.e., the US
>> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU
>> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" --
>> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed
>> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been
>> doing so.  2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to
>> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really
>> all it does is assure that things stayed the same.
>>
>> Similar things happen in many of these arenas.
>>
>> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and
>> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the
>> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy --
>> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and
>> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the
>> principle is.
>>
>> So don't take it too seriously.  You still have to do the policy
>> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that.
>> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft"
>> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy
>> development is alive.
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms:
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very
>>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The
>>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public"
>>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which
>>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and
>>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the
>>> public.
>>>
>>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications
>>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public
>>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport
>>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the
>>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph,
>>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time
>>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points
>>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's
>>> information."
>>>
>>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia."
>>>
>>> The definition of  "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful:
>>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any
>>> electromagnetic means."
>>>
>>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to
>>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be
>>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to
>>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at
>>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's
>>> the term used for WTO member-countries):
>>>
>>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may
>>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the
>>> movement of information within and across borders, including for
>>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to
>>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable
>>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member
>>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to
>>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement.
>>>
>>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures
>>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages,
>>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner
>>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
>>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services.
>>>
>>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and
>>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than
>>> as necessary:
>>>
>>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public
>>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their
>>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public
>>> generally;
>>>
>>>
>>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications
>>> transport networks or services; or
>>>
>>>
>>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply
>>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule.
>>>
>>>
>>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e),
>>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport
>>> networks and services may include:
>>>
>>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services;
>>>
>>>
>>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including
>>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services;
>>>
>>>
>>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such
>>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph
>>> 7(a);
>>>
>>>
>>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the
>>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such
>>> equipment to such networks;
>>>
>>>
>>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits
>>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another
>>> service supplier; or
>>>
>>>
>>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing.
>>>
>>>
>>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing
>>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place
>>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications
>>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic
>>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its
>>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such
>>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at EUROPARL.EUROPA.EU>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels
>>> on 2 March 2015:
>>>
>>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic
>>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby
>>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective
>>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used;
>>>
>>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an
>>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly
>>> available electronic communications services.
>>>
>>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package
>>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)?
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>> //Erik
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter
>>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se]
>>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27
>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society
>>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service,
>>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a
>>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a
>>> recipient of services."
>>>
>>> See
>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN
>>>
>>>
>>> This should be the amended act:
>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034
>>>
>>>
>>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the
>>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may
>>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should
>>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy
>>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public
>>> authorities were that to be the case.
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>>
>>> Amelia
>>>
>>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Seth and others,
>>>
>>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally
>>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be
>>> out-of-date the moment they were made.
>>>
>>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take
>>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments.
>>>
>>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely
>>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found
>>> here:
>>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent
>>>
>>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your
>>> best source, see here:
>>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm
>>>
>>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood
>>> the tests of time quite well.
>>>
>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That looks like ISIC.  Thanks.  I'm solid on what the terms mean re
>>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the
>>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms.
>>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because
>>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel
>>> <jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics:
>>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in
>>> particular:
>>>
>>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier
>>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound,
>>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and
>>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite,  electronic mail, facsimile
>>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and
>>> support services. It does not include the value of the information
>>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet
>>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access
>>> to the Internet.
>>>
>>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer
>>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing
>>> services), news agency services    (provision of news, photographs, and
>>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services
>>> (database services and web search portals)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson
>>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12
>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules
>>>
>>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs
>>> telecommunication service?
>>>
>>> I use the ISIC.  But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two
>>> categories.
>>>
>>> Not here:
>>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm
>>>
>>> Or here (telecom, but not info service):
>>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en
>>>
>>>
>>> Seth
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you
>>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider
>>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni <ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Marilia,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish
>>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV
>>> document is more than welcome.
>>>
>>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it
>>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and
>>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that
>>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Eduardo
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel
>>> <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in
>>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that
>>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN
>>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate
>>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights
>>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil).
>>>
>>> The document will be updated as more information is made available.
>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF
>>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> CTS/FGV
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marília Maciel
>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito
>>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society -
>>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>
>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine
>>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital
>>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits