[governance] NN Workshop proposal

[Parminder]

Thanks Milton for this.

Some comments

>While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various >approaches to NN and in particular examine how >consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in >middle income and developing countries. Relates to theme - 
>Openness

I dont think we need to be highlighting the argument that service providers take against developing NN frameworks- that of investments needed for laying infrastructure. They are powerful enough to do it themselves. That argument in my view doesn't hold, but I will not argue on that. It is enough that this is the service providers'  argument and the public interest argument is more about people's right to access information, applications, services etc of their choice, and of media diversity etc. Why should we not be highlighting these public interest arguments rather than the regressive one - we need to fund investments in new infrastructure, so let us charge people as we want. Why would for instance we not instead say that we will examine the NN implications on content and media diversity and other rights of the people and communities. 

Moreover there is something inherently repugnant about speaking about governance systems of the North alongwith needs/ infrastructure of the South...I am sorry to appear a bit too strong on this,  but this is patronizing. South is as concerned about governance systems as it is about infrastructure, pl get this clearly. Milton, you are always concerned about how we should discuss governance issues more than infrastructural issues at the IGF, so why did it not occur to you to frame it something like this - how the emerging NN consensus in the North affects the South, when South is hardly  included/participating in the global NN debates, while the NN regimes that will emerge from a North-based consensus will almost definitely become a global default, and thus be forced on the South. 

I would also *not* like to start with - NN is confusing, which again is more the argument/ strategy of those opposed to NN who will like to use the alleged 'confusion' not to have anything done on NN. I would rather like to start with something like  - There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others effected by it. 

The fact that there is an increasing  recognition of such an urgency - seen from many political and legislative articulations of it in many countries - is at least as much of a fact as the supposed 'confusion' around NN. Whether we begin our workshop proposal statement one way or the other depends on our political proclivities.  And it is my understanding that most IGC members prefer some kind of recognition of NN principles, rather than wanting to further add to the - deliberately whipped up -  impression of 'great confusion around NN'. This is, in nay case, after all not an academic workshop. Though of course we will give platform to all views but 'confusion around NN' doesnt appear to be the right point of departure. If there is indeed so much confusion how did most relevant actors in Norway agree to a set of NN principles. Why should then we as a progressive civil society group want to keep harping on the 'confusion around NN'. 

I propose the following text.

"There is an increasing recognition of the urgency to develop some kind of NN principles in order to preserve the open and democratic nature of the Internet, and safeguard the interest of Internet users and others affected by it. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While proceeding from numerous national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN, especially vis a vis developing countries who seem largely absent from NN debates."   

The rest can be as it is.

Thanks 

parminder 



Milton L Mueller wrote:
> With thanks to Parminder and Adam. For discussion and additions of examples (other countries)
>
> Title
> Network Neutrality - Exploring a global consensus on principles
>
> Concise description (up to 200 words)
> Network neutrality (NN) can be controversial because there are conflicting ideas about what it is and what obligations it imposes on service providers. This workshop will explore recent efforts to articulate and agree on NN principles in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and developing countries. While focused on national regulatory developments, it will try to assess the transnational implications of various approaches to NN and in particular examine how consensus in the developed world might affect infrastructure development in middle income and developing countries. Relates to theme -Openness
>
>
> Who would you approach as co-organizers ? or who do you think should organize it?
>  
> Internet Governance Project (IGP) is happy to play a support role in organizing this. Others we would approach: Free Press (USA-based civil society advocacy group); Consumer Council of Norway; ITforChange (India-based civil society advocacy group), Japan Internet Providers Association and Ministry of Communications. There are other specific countries or examples that are involved in such negotiations over principles that we don't know about yet but will learn about later. We will seek out additional developing country commentators in particular.
>
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090416/abbe3922/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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