[governance] Comments on chair's text

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Dear Robert, 

I am just responding to the question you raised on para 71.

I am sure you already know that this is a highly charged issue since the mid
90s. However, there are many issues here. Mainly economic constraints to it
e.g understanding how peering is done and understanding also what causes
high bandwidth charges in certain regions e.g.how the telcos charge higher
for regional bandwidth in Asia as opposed to connection to out of the
region, so as to compete with each other to become THE regional hub, etc.
There is also the issues of how we need to promote Ixs as a way to keep
regional traffic regional and national traffic national as another way to
ensure peering regional to region, thereby solving this issue more
practically.

As such I am not sure we need to have a CS view per se, aside from ensuring
this leads to affordable access both for international connectivity as well
as national connectivity.

Taking point by point nevertheless, 

71 a) takes into account the realism that in countries where they have
deregulated telecoms and Internet provisioning, they cannot dictate to
private companies what to do. Therefore aside from insisting on principles
such as enumerated which namely comes from WTO rules these words may be the
best you can get. Having said that, I think we should have the focus not
just be on international connectivity but also often the problem lies on a
national or regional basis as well and this needs to be included. There if
often no peering nationally and regionally as well. So I would suggest that
we add the word "national and international" in front of "transit and
interconnection costs", if we are to propose anything.

71b) totally to be encouraged as everyone stands to benefit

71c) is to be supported as it includes IX creation, local access and
content. I may however suggest "advance connectivity" be changed to
"affordable and equitable access" or something to that effect. It is not
clear what :advance connectivity means" and if someone wants to keep this,
then perhaps it shouldbe defined. I would also add...that funding also be
encouraged to help subsidise international connectivity where traffic
patterns do not justify full peering as such.

71d) Do not know enough of the latest politics behind ITU's involvement in
this (I have the old history only where some are not comfortable with their
involvement), and so will not comment as this is more of a political issue.
However, since it states more output for consideration it is OK.
Implementation, again I am not sure how many countries with a liberalised
environment can dictate their providers to peer, if peering requirements are
not present. From a CS point of view though, there is not much to comment,
unless CS feels that there is better body. The clause now however does
encourage other bodies to examine too, so I don't think we have anything to
add here.

71e) good

71 f) This clause is "agreed" already it seems, so would not touch this.
Although I think there is a need to focus also on national and regional
practices which hinder affordability and survival of ISPs in general.

71 g) OK to encourage but again in reality, this is up to players to decide
in reality. Governments who have liberalised are limited by what they can
dictate. It may be wise here rather to also suggest that we encourage donor
or funding agencies to help subsidise in addition to encouraging key players
to subsidise. Often traffic patterns from LDCs do not allow for peering.
Also here is also where we need to help fund Ixs amongst LDCs nationally
(where they have liberalised) and/or regionally.

IMO.

Laina


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:17 AM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text

Para 71, subsection g: Interconnection costs...

question: What is the CS view on this?

concern: Does this raise the issue with Cuba? that of Helms- Burton..if so,
one should be careful with this sub-section.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance