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

[Parminder]

Danny, 

 

>>"resisting privatisation" rather than  

being "neutral">>

 

Exactly, that's why we framed the debate in terms of 'public-ness' (private
and public as essentially opposites) and not of just network neutrality
(NN). 

 

And to address the issues you raise about diversity, and the concerns of
those who were left out in the "good old days", we must note that
'public-ness' is not necessarily about the global public, there are local
publics and diversified publics. However, we also need to understand that
the complexities of their inter-relationship are going through some
significant changes, all of which are not necessarily bad. And there have to
governance components corresponding to these changes.  

 

About NN being basically a US concern, I have grave doubts on this (as Bill
also mentioned in his April fool mail) ..... While we need to encourage
diversity, this cannot be done by denying reality. By denying the extent of
today's globalization, and the US centricity of it, it doesn't go away. But
by denying we may not address issues which could reduce the detrimental
effects of this kind of neo-liberal globalization.

 

Bret has also earlier raised the issue about network neutrality (NN) being a
US issue, and I wonder why so many people should think so..... It is so
obvious that it is not, and to give only a few arguments

 

1.    The manner in which the economic and social issues around Internet
take shape in different countries have so many commonalities, it is
untenable to believe that NN is today an issue in US and it wont be a issue
in other places. It most certainly will be. And as I explained NN is much
more complex that the one-dimensional common carriage issue, and the
socio-economics pulls around it are going to much more intensive. 

2.    US continues to be the main exporter of economic models - and even
social models - to the world, and this, though being a decades old
phenomenon, has only intensifies in recent years. 

3.    Linked to 2 above, as pointed out by Bill in the referred mail, a lot
of work is being done by US centred MNC groups to develop technology
standards that can set limits to possibilities in the future - for everyone.


4.    Also linked to 2 above, and also mentioned in Bill's email, once
dominant models are set in the US and the North, the logic of globalization
leaves little public policy freedom to other countries to determine their
polices, and the same is also true of Internet related polices. 

   

So for the CS, even in countries outside the US it will be better to lead
the debates in these areas than react to them. India is actively debating
switching to next generation networks. The ICTD models imported from the
North that prioritized revenue models over development objectives have done
enough harm in the South, now we better remain vigilant against overly
commercial models of Internet development being imported - the balance of
public interest must be maintained. 

 

>> Like  

all of us here (I think) I work toward an Internet where every person  

in the world has equal opportunity to interact with the others that  

they choose.>>

 

Yes, it is on the basis of these clearly agreed (among us), but not codified
principles (in regard to the Internet) that I propose to the IGC to move
forward in trying to develop the basic principles of Internet and IG, and
propose them to the world community for adoption. It has been typically the
role of civil society to trigger such activity. Even if it is not something
that may get immediate acceptability at present, the process still needs to
be taken up. 

 

I am still interested in the 'what next' issue - how can we in the IGC
influence the development of global and sub-global public policy on IG
towards the directions that we want it to go in. 

 

Best 

 

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: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:27 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC

 

Hi Parminder

 

Thanks for the insightful comments. Yes, I'm a curmudgeon when it  

comes to formalism, and probably not in a way that's helpful :). Like  

all of us here (I think) I work toward an Internet where every person  

in the world has equal opportunity to interact with the others that  

they choose. This is of course impossible, at least partially due to  

the very institutions which facilitated a level of neutrality amongst  

a much smaller and less complex network.

 

I would draw analogies to the terms "transparency" and "democracy",  

which are considered unfailingly positive in Euro-US discourses that  

share those terms in their cultural heritage, suppressing the ways to  

which those terms are *also* deployed by MNCs and transnational  

capital to e.g. set the playing field for foreign direct investment.  

As you note, the ideological nature of these kinds of terms does not  

have to a barrier to agreed principles being advanced (e.g., I am  

positive toward democracy and transparency in principle). But I am  

suspicious of the way that civil society can become a home for  

business- and government-friendly rhetoric that may ultimately be in  

the interests of those in power. As Bret suggested, perhaps the US  

has the most to gain from the "neutrality" discussion - which is fine  

but it's not my priority.

 

This is a practical point: if you push for "neutrality" without  

losing some of the sheen of the "good old days of net neutrality"  

then you will not motivate support from those for whom those days  

were not so good.

 

For this reason, at a strategic level, I prefer verbs to nouns, and  

to focus on where things are going than "how things are". So I prefer  

the idea of "commoning" to the "commons", "democratising" to  

"democracies", being committed to "diversifying" rather than  

"diversity", and, I guess, "resisting privatisation" rather than  

being "neutral".

 

All the best

 

Danny

 

 

 

On 07/04/2006, at 6:42 PM, Parminder wrote:

 

> 

> 

> 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

> 

 

 

_______________________________________________

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/20060408/0b87ad41/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance