[governance] Re: spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...)

[Lee McKnight]

Stefan,

I've been criticizing the lack of info provided by the firms doing
traffic engineering, in print, for a long time, which is why I advocated
consumer SLAs rather than the current obscurity which shields the
provider practices from light, but obviously not criticism. See my
'Info' article 'towards consumer service level agreements' with Bill
Lehr, from I think 2001.

I am not attacking anyone, I am critiquing the twisted 'concept' of
network neutrality, which was planted in the policy discourse by Google
lobbyists, and is great fun for stimulating heated arguments but not
useful in my opinion for shedding light. I believe net neutrality to be
useful mainly as a blunt instrument for criticizing carrier practices,
but when examined more closely, as I have said before, I find no there
there. You and others may disagree, but so far on the list all I have
seen is one attempt after another that when it gets down to facts, seems
to be a bit, as you say, twisted.  It wasn't me that said spam filters
violated net neutrality.

As you may note, Milton and I have different opinions on that concept,
so am surprised to find you trying to group us, but whatever. We are
indeed faculty colleagues who have agreed to disagree on network
neutrality. 

As I said in another note, I prefer 'universal, open, flexible access'
as a global policy principle. 

The point is not who controls which tool, it is what global policy
principle is agreed by multistakeholders as an overarching principle for
Internet governance. 

So criticize me for that phrase if you wish, since yeah I helped bring
it into the Caribbean discourse to legitimize it before going global -
Google lobbyists aren;t the only ones who know a thing or two about
agenda setting, they just have a head start on me : )

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 11/10/07 3:57 PM >>>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:25:34AM -0500,
 Lee McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote 
 a message of 80 lines which said:

>  I guess to be logically consistent we should all shut down our spam
> filters so we're net neutral.

That's a very twisted way of representing the opinions of other
people. You write an important word: "OUR spam filters". I have spam
filters, like anyone. But I choosed them and I control them, that's
the big difference with the stuff put by a provider (and not
documented, and about which the user support never reply).

You make the same error as Milton Mueller when, to criticize people
who complain against traffic engineering and bandwidth shaping, said
"Do you think that IETF should not have invented diffserv?" diffserv,
like spam filters, is a tool. The point is not wether the tool is Good
or Evil but who controls it.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance