[governance] Comments on chair's text

Thu Oct 20 07:41:31 EDT 2005

  Laina, Hi.

>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.

Agreed by government, and considered open by governments.

>If the latter, than why is only one para
>in the Chair's paper marked "agreed".

Agreed is noted at the end of each paragraph (1, 2, 3 4, etc.), not 
at the end of each sub-para (a, b, cc whatever).  So in Para 71 
Agreed after f) indicates that a) through f) are agreed.  This would 
be consistent with the rest of the document.

So g) is open/not agreed (it is also in square brackets, used in 
these processes to indicate that language is disputed).  g) is the 
one we should be commenting on, unless you have some violent 
objection to some text, in which case we could think about asking the 
chair to reopen that text as we have done on two paras (45 c and 65.)

At least that's my reading of the document.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

Adam

>  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