[governance] IGC statements

[Milton L Mueller]

Hello, I have finally gotten a chance to review the statement. My vote
is YES, understanding that we have a binary option here. 

However, I note an error - not a wording problem or a shade of meaning I
don't like, but an outright, puzzling error -- in the language on net
neutrality (NN). The language in question says that the "challenges [of
NN] are most manifest in the physical layer, but also increasingly in
the content and application layers." 

This whole sentence doesn't make sense to me. You should just strike it
if you can. 

The problem of NN is precisely that those in control of bandwidth extend
vertical control to content and applications. 

So it is literally meaningless to say that the NN problem resides in one
layer or the other; it is about the extension of vertical control from
one "layer" to another; i.e. from bandwidth to content/applications. 

And by the way, "content and applications" are not separate "layers;"
the application layer is a term that has meaning in the OSI framework;
content is something that applications act on. In discussing NN, I
suggest that we will do ourselves a favor if we abandon completely the
ersatz layering terminology that seems to have evolved as a bastardized
version of the OSI model. That's my pedantic 2cents for today. ;-)

MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:34 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] IGC statements
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone
> 
> Pl find enclosed the proposed caucus statements for the IGF open
> consultations, seeking the group's consensus on them.
> 
> At this stage please indicate A CLEAR YES OR NO to the statements.
Added
> explanations etc are fine, but THE 'YES' OR 'NO' TO THE STATEMENTS as
> proposed here (and at this stage unchangeable on any member's
suggestions)
> SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR.
> 
> If your response is NO, please also indicate which statement, and if
> possible, which part of it you have specific objection to. This helps
in
> the
> process of calling a possible rough consensus.
> 
> When you accept such a group statement to be made it may not be
exactly
> the
> statement you will make for yourself, given the choice. However you
accept
> that given the prevailing views in the group this statement should be
made
> on the behalf of the group.
> 
> We need a good number of YESes for this statement to go, so pl
indicate
> your
> vote. Numbers also affirm the group's vitality and backing of the work
> being
> done.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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