[governance] Comments on chair's text

Wed Oct 19 11:39:30 EDT 2005

Adam,

Please bear with my ignorance on what you mean by a) to f) has been agreed
upon. Do you mean by CS or by gov. If the latter, than why is only one para
in the Chair's paper marked "agreed". If CS, and it is the doc you attached,
I can agree with most of it, since it widens the issue to include national,
regional and liberalisation issues but it does mix up issues, thereby may
not make as great an impact as it otherwise could have.

>From what I understand of the issue from the gov point of view though
(having been involved through APIA at APECTEL, etc), govs focus just on the
international connectivity part of things and making it again the rest of
world versus "US" backbone provider issues. Interestingly here it is
slightly different from the traditional telco practices (implied in the doc
attached with its ref to submarine cables etc). The Internet backbone issue
from what I understand it has more to do with the lack of peering with
people with lesser traffic patterns, and this issue happens not just with US
Internet backbone providers. Peering is unlike the traditional telco
international practice of sharing costs 50:50 and settling by accounting
rates.

I.e the main issue I have with the paper you attached is the lack of
distinguishing between telco issues and liberalisation, universal access etc
to reduce costs, and the International Internet connectivity issues which
involves issues of national, regional and international peering and pricing
practices. Just from my region, I will note that even with international
peering "forced", there remains issues domestically where lack of peering
and high regional bandwidth costs, results in higher costs to the end user.
It then falls within the purview of telco liberalisation (since it is
incumbent practices which impairs ISPs and consumer advocacy issues to push
prices down, etc. 

I.e whilst the paper does expand the issue to show it is not as easy as to
just lower international Internet bandwidth costs, it mixes up the telco
side of the issue with the ISP/Internet connectivity part of the issue. It
may have been better to make things a little clearer. In any case, my
suggestion is that CS push for overall goal of affordable and equitable
access, and state that it involves national, regional and International
Internet connectivity issues as well as telco liberalisation and universal
access issues as well.

IMO. Otherwise, not strong feelings to change what you have already agreed
to.

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 4:09 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on chair's text

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

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