[governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC

Fri Apr 7 02:42:13 EDT 2006

Hi Danny, (and others)

Your comments on IG neutrality are profound, but do leave the issue of 'what
then' or 'what next' un-answered. And I will like to take these comments as
the point of departure for some points I want to make in terms of the
'public-ness of Internet' theme which we submitted. 

I agree with you on,  

>>the term (network neutrality) frames in a way that  

>>takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much  

>more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality  

>>(wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive  

>>with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet  

>>use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as neutral  

>>as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious  

>>investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that  

>>time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle.

I agree that we cannot for long hide concerns that are expressly public
interest/policy concerns under technical jargon. And this particular
instance (network neutrality debates) of trying to do so is symptomatic of a
broader process of technology debates trying to masquerade as public policy
debates and vice versa. 

Internet technologies are so powerful, expansive etc that some kind of
progressive differentiation of the Internet is given and unavoidable, and I
can cite many situations (as you have) in which it may be desirable as well.
So, to fight for a sterile and ideologically meaningless technical term -
network neutrality- has its limits, unless it is infused and linked with the
public interest issues that underpin our real concerns, and which have
justifications that we can independently hold forth on (coming from our
ideological orientations). 

(I am of the opinion that seeing network neutrality as merely an extension
of the common carriage principle is not sufficient, because Internet is
essentially a much more 'specialized' and 'dominating' space than earlier
telecom spaces that mostly carried un-differentiated voice services.)

This is the reason that, though the network neutrality concerns were the
trigger of our 'public-ness' proposal, we did not frame the theme in terms
of the technical principle of 'network neutrality' but in socio-political
terms of public-ness, public interest, public domain etc. 

These terms were somewhat hastily applied/cooked-up (in this context), and I
am sure the debate and its conceptual terms need a lot of refining. I would
think that IGC's substantial contribution to IG should be in this direction.
A recent posting on IGC list by Garth Graham of Sascha Meinrath's blog
speaks of 'commons-based models' for Internet. 

Vittorio's theme proposal for IGF speaks of drafting 'a high-level document
of principles, stating rights and duties of the users of the Internet'. Our
public-ness proposal also essentially asks for stating such defining
principles for IG which comes from essential characterization of what we
collectively see the 'Internet' to be.....

I think there is enough CS sentiment around these issues, which in my
opinion has important commonalities but, as is true of the general
information society discourse, these views come from very different
backgrounds, and there are some linguistic distinctions and some real
ideological gaps  that can be worked around. For example, I think our
framing of the issue as claiming the 'public-ness' of Internet can be a red
herring for some as connoting too much of public institutions (as in
governmental) framework, which is not at all the intention. 

Whether it is a public-ness framework or commons-based model for Internet,
or Vittorio's rights based approach to Internet - all of them point to the
same direction and purpose.  

Though we needed to have done these substantive discussion before the 31st
to see if some well-worked and well-supported theme submission could be
submitted from the IGC - which had the moral and the political force of IGC
behind it - I still think that if we can do these discussions now, and
develop a good position that takes on from the above discussion/ proposals
for laying our the basic principles of IG and of Internet, we would have
contributed the best to IGF process. And in the bargain made enough ground
for laying the basis of status quo plus for IGC which, as Jeannette, Bill
and others have noted, requires some basic agreed positions within which the
debate largely takes place (without of course stifling intellectual dissent
and freedom). 

Regards

Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:59 AM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG

>> Is "net neutrality" a global issue?

Good question Bret

It is a "global issue", but from my POV, like many of the issues most  

loudly raised in the US (e.g. FoE), the term frames in a way that  

takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much  

more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality  

(wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive  

with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet  

use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as neutral  

as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious  

investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that  

time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle.

More to the point re: IGF, the economic drivers for retaining control  

of the customer's content experience (and not providing a free ride  

for competitors) are strong, and the potential policy remedies seem  

weak and dispersed, or at least more interventionist than the neo- 

classical ideology of US internet community would care for.  I see it  

as more of a "worthy utopian principle", like transparency, than an  

"issue".

Regards,

Danny

-- 

Danny Butt

db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net

Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com

Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand

Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200

On 04/04/2006, at 3:29 AM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.- 

> centric

> issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to the

> Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net

> neutrality" a global issue?

> 

>          Bret

> _______________________________________________

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060407/23d89a9f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance