[governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple for Internet Governance"

[Milton L Mueller]

"Universal, flexible, open and equitable" are less precise and more prone to religious quibbling than the concept of net neutrality. This is just a string of adjectives. 

A significant literature on the NN topic has developed and we have an increasingly clear concept of its implications. Lee is just muddying the water.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:53 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; dan at musicunbound.com; narten at us.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as GlobalPrinciple
> for Internet Governance"
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> My point exactly, a 'principle' defined by exceptions and nuances in the
> eye of the beholder seems perfect only for theological debates on how
> many neutral angels can fit on the head of a pin.
> 
> So it is not really a 'nice principle,' it's a trap set by Google
> lobbyists all too many of you have fallen into. Again, nothing against
> Google, love that search engine and gmail etc, but their spin-doctors,
> are well, spin post-docs as I see how well they have spun many of you,
> including my own esteemed colleagues ; ).
> 
> I prefer "universal, open, equitable, and flexible access" to quote from
> the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework Draft Version 0.1,
> October 2007, as a Global Principle.
> 
> Go to
> http://ctu.int/ctu/Projects/InternetGovernance/tabid/73/Default.aspx if
> you wish to review the doc or post comments, perhaps explaining to
> Caribbean governments why they really all would be better off talking of
> network neutrality, when what they mean is universal, open, equitable
> and flexible access as a shared policy principle for Internet
> governance.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> narten at us.ibm.com 11/09/07 9:08 AM >>>
> > I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with
> end
> > users being given maximum control over their settings.
> 
> Nice principle, but when ISPs regularly complain > 80% of the email
> they carry is spam, it costs an ISP $$ to process it and deliver it to
> the "edges", only to be filtered there.
> 
> Surely one can understand why they find it highly desirable to keep it
> from entering their network in the first place.
> 
> Thomas
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date:
> 11/9/2007 9:26 AM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1120 - Release Date: 11/9/2007 9:26 AM
 
____________________________________________________________
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