[bestbits] On "Technology Neutrality"

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at consensus.pro
Sat Mar 7 07:16:29 EST 2015 

Interesting, but for what it is worth, WCIT 2012 is very much history. I wouldn't spend a lot of cycles thinking about it.

On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:43, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150307/63489bb5/attachment.sig>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list