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

Mon Apr 10 14:14:45 EDT 2006

Milton wrote:

>>To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and "private" ( = bad) is
to fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet. 

Milton, I think you misunderstood my dichotomy here. I was comparing Danny's
preference for the term "resisting privatisation" to mine  - 'promoting
public-ness' - so as to emphasize that we are saying very similar things.

So the dichotomy I indicated was between the terms 'private' and 'public' -
they certainly mean the opposite, and derive their meaning from that
opposition. This certainly doesn't mean that the world has either to be
public or to be private. These spheres are of course complimentary - how can
one be without the other.... I don't know why should you read ideology in
what is merely clarification of terms, in an attempt to make a point. 

>> To assert only one of these principles to the exclusion of the other is
destructive of its potential.>>

As to why our proposal of 'public-ness' asserts one point to the exclusion
of other is that the context - in this case issues like network neutrality
and shrinkage of public domain - may often require one to do so. For
example, an expression of concern about erosion of privacy in the Internet
age may legitimately asserts one point to the exclusion of other......

And complimentary relationships do not exist without struggles of power and
encroachment of legitimate spheres. We (IT for Change) did a study which
served as an input to the deliberation of the Task Force on Financial
Mechanism on 'ownership models for ICTD initiatives'
(http://itforchange.net/mambo/content/view/38/40/ ) which studies the issue
of control and power within the much celebrated MSPs in ICTD. 

>> At its best, Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary
relationship and protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats.>>

And the threats to maintaining right public-private complementarity
implicated in the Net Neutrality issue are very real. 

>>>At its worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of
regulated unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation and
court battles.>>

I do not know if you know that many other counties have a similar 'model of
regulated unbundling of networks' - one example is India, which has a
population of 1 Billion, which is much more that of US. So if you still call
it the US model I think you realize that US models are 'larger than life
size' and get mercilessly exported - with or against wishes of people of
other regions. And this domination is even more real in telecom and IT
areas. I do not know why so many people still keep insisting NN to be a US
issue, just because European telecom regulation of last mile is relatively
more liberal. (Conflating NN with just the common- carriage or open access
issue is a mistake which will not take long to become too obvious to
ignore.)

You actually assert the very basis of Internet in a manner which is already
being eroded by compromising of the NN principle.  

>> Additionally, the internet is configured in a way that permits developers
of private services, applications and content the freedom to innovate and to
reach anyone via universal connectivity.>>>

You surely know that in many countries VoIP services are not being allowed
"to innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity".

>> Given the rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom policy laws,
regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a nonbinding
global discussion forum would be able to make a contribution in this area.>>

I think this point gets partly addressed above, but I have something
interesting to say here. Do you not also think that the kind of censorships
that China or S Arabia applies can also be considered rooted in 'domestic
telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions'. But your whole IGF
proposal is on this issue - why, in this case, do YOU bother about what
other countries do, and what happens to people in other countries??? (And
how do you suppose "a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to
make a contribution in this area" of country based content control.)
"Domestic" and "global" may not be that distant in the info society.  

So if some 'political' rights of 'other' people can be a global issue, why
cant some socio - economic rights related issues (media rights,
communication rights, richness of public domain) of 'other' people also be
global issues. But then this brings us to the issue of hierarchy between
rights, and even non-admissibility of some rights, which is something we
have discussed before. 

Why should 'political' rights be managed 'globally' and global spaces be
no-no for socio-economic rights?? This is a question many in the developing
countries often ask?

Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:52 PM
To: db at dannybutt.net; parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 4/8/2006 12:50 AM >>>

>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). 

On the contrary, the beauty of the Internet is that it makes private and
public complementary -- i.e., mutually reinforcing -- not "opposites". The
Internet is composed overwhelmingly of privately owned physical networks
that use the public, open, nonproprietary standards and protocols to
interoperate. Additionally, the internet is configured in a way that permits
developers of private services, applications and content the freedom to
innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity.

To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and "private" ( = bad) is to
fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet is and what will continue to
make it a success. To assert only one of these principles to the exclusion
of the other is destructive of its potential. 

The meaning of NN in this context is not entirely clear. At its best, Net
Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship and
protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats. At its worst, it
is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of regulated unbundling of
networks, which devolved into microregulation and court battles. I prefer
discussions to revolve around concepts of "nondiscrimination", but admit
that NN is a better PR term. Given the rootedness of these issues in
domestic telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions, however, I am
confused as to how a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to
make a contribution in this area. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060410/cae1924f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance