[governance] Comments on chair's text

[Adam Peake]

Hi,

Para 71, a) through f) is agreed, one part remains open, it's in 
square brackets:

  [g) Encouraging relevant parties to commercially negotiate reduced 
interconnection costs for LDCs and other countries mentioned in the 
Geneva Declaration of Principles, taking into account the special 
constraints of LDCs.]

This is being argued over in the ITU study group 3 looking at 
interconnection issues (and d) of 71 encourages ITU to get a move 
on... it's been at this issue for 7 years), but I don't know the 
status of those discussions.

Anyway.  Civil Society in Geneva had a position on the issue broadly, 
see attached, we've asked this group to comment on g.

Only other comment I remember us making recently on interconnection 
issues was in our response to the WGIG report:

"22. With regard to international interconnection charges, the Caucus 
believes that there must be international rules encouraging fair, 
cost-oriented charging, considering that developing countries pay the 
full cost of the circuits involved.

23. This is a matter of considerable urgency that should be 
investigated in relevant international fora like the ITU, WTO and the 
proposed forum."

Adam




At 11:01 AM -0700 10/18/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:
>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
-------------- next part --------------
{\rtf1\mac\ansicpg10000\cocoartf102
{\fonttbl\f0\froman\fcharset77 Times-Roman;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;}
\paperw11900\paperh16840\margl1416\margr1416\margb1134\margt1416\vieww9200\viewh8700\viewkind1\viewscale100
\pard\ri-5\ql\qnatural

\f0\fs24 \cf0 Statement on the contribution for document 
WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/10 (Chapter\
Three: Internet Governance)\
\
Submitted by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)\
\
On behalf of the Informal Coalition on Financing ICTD\
\
Coalition Members:\
\
AMARC\
APC\
Bread for All\
CRIS\
IT for Change\
ITeM\
\
The Informal Coalition on Financing ICTD wishes to contribute its 
thoughts on Section 4 Measures to promote development of the 
Chair\'d5s excellent paper on Chapter 3 on Internet Governance. We 
focus our attention on points 56 and 57 on making Internet access 
affordable.\
\
Apart from being a logical infrastructure, the Internet consists as 
much in the physical network that connects all people and enables 
them to use it for achieving their full potential in promoting their 
sustainable development and improving their quality of life (Geneva 
Declaration of Principles). Effective universal access to the 
Internet and effective use of the Internet for all people therefore 
comprises a core policy issue of Internet Governance.\
\
The Internet is a global public space that should be open and 
accessible to all on a non-discriminatory basis. It is a global 
public infrastructure and a global public good, whose value increases 
the more people and organizations are added to it. This is the 
positive network externality that the Internet has the potential to 
bring to human relations. And hence universal Internet access is a 
key goal of the WSIS Plan of Action that commits us all to connecting 
half the world\'d5s inhabitants to ICTs by 2015. According to ITU 
figures, 46% of the developed world\'d5s inhabitants are already 
connected to the Internet. Only 5% of the developing world\'d5s 
inhabitants have Internet access. So the WSIS goal requires us to 
find ways of connecting 45% of the developing world to the Internet 
by 2015. This translates into connecting approximately 2.2 billion 
people in the developing world to the Internet in one decade.\
\
This is obviously a mammoth task but one that we should not shrink 
from. It requires us to find innovative ways to make Internet access 
affordable. And this is why we propose that in addition to dealing 
with unequal international interconnection costs and developing low 
cost equipment as proposed in the Chair\'d5s paper, the following 
steps should be included to make the Internet truly ubiquitous:\
\
a)	Reducing international Internet costs\
-	by different  policy options towards universal access. These 
may include eliminating exploitative monopolistic practices for 
international backbone provision, including through submarine cables;\
-	by supporting the establishment of national and international internet\
exchange points;\
-	by building local demand for national, regional and international\
backbone networks;\
-	by reducing costs charged by backbone providers;\
\
b) Through public initiatives for backbone and Internet provision in 
areas of market failure that, inter alia, leverage existing public 
infrastructure like electricity and railways networks;\
\
c) Eliminating exploitative monopolistic practices that affect the 
provision of IP-based services, including VoIP;\
\
d) Exploring an open network access approach to extending Internet 
access in communities, particularly through the promotion of SME and 
community networking;\
\
e) Reconfiguring the mandate of national Universal Access Funds to 
support Internet connectivity, applications and content development 
and capacity building;\
\
f) Exploring the development of local initiatives for content and 
applications development as a way of reducing the cost of connecting 
to the Internet;\
\
g) Exploring the use of free and open source software, specially for 
the provision of public services in areas such as education and 
health;\
\
h) Promoting free-share or open content paradigm for socio-development 
content on the Internet, and recognizing it as distinct from 
commercial content that may require different IPR regimes.\
\
i) Encouraging organisations to continue the study of the question of 
the International Internet Connectivity (IIC) as an urgent matter to 
develop appropriate Recommendations;\
\
k) Developing low-cost equipment, especially for use in developing countries.\
\
\
\
}
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance