RV: [governance] What is Network Neutrality: revised

Fri Jan 9 04:58:05 EST 2009

This is a slightly revised version of the email I just sent, after reading
Parminder's post to the BOR list. Changes are in all caps for ease of
reading.

Parminder says: (starting by quoting Ian)

"So, the real task/ question is as you [Ian] put it 'what are the desirable
network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express
them another way?'"

"However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I [Parminder] would not
want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand
image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue." (end
quote)

I think that our statement can support compliance with a desired principle
and end result that defines OUR concerns, adding a parenthetical reference
such as (sometimes/commonly included/known as in definitions of NN). The
same "brand image and mass behind" the term allow it to be dismissed with
allegations of "that's not what NN means" if we are not precise.

I think we have to define exactly what our concerns are, address them in the
statement, and then use the term NN if it helps clarify our position. Can we
do that in a concise, concrete manner? 

To be effective, we need to have a short, practical, powerful statement. We
could do this by outlining the importance of a [REMOVE: rights]
RESPONSIBILITY or PRINCIPLES-based framework with a specific reference to
support end-user choice and control -- MY view of NN  :-) -- and a practical
emphasis for the next IGF: greater voice and inclusion enhanced remote
participation.

Thanks, everyone for moving the discussion forward.

Parminder says: (starting by quoting Ian)

"So, the real task/ question is as you [Ian] put it 'what are the desirable
network qualities that we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express
them another way?'"

"However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I [Parminder] would not
want to jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand
image and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue." (end
quote)

I think that our statement can support compliance with a desired principle
and end result that defines OUR concerns, adding a parenthetical reference
such as (sometimes/commonly included/known as in definitions of NN). The
same "brand image and mass behind" the term allow it to be dismissed with
allegations of "that's not what NN means" if we are not precise.

I think we have to define exactly what our concerns are, address them in the
statement, and then use the term NN if it helps clarify our position. Can we
do that in a concise, concrete manner? 

To be effective, we need to have a short, practical, powerful statement. We
could do this by outlining the importance of a rights-based framework with a
specific reference to support end-user choice and control -- MY view of NN
:-) -- and a practical emphasis for the next IGF: greater voice and
inclusion enhanced remote participation.

Thanks, everyone for moving the discussion forward.

  _____  

De: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 09 de Enero de 2009 01:30 a.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
CC: 'George Sadowsky'
Asunto: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality

Ian

I don't think any serious actor in the policy space takes NN (network
neutrality) as any kind of absolute technical architectural principle any
longer, because of the reasons you have laid out. So, the real task/
question is as you put it "what are the desirable network qualities that we
are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?"

However, as argued earlier, at least provisionally, I would not want to
jettison the NN term and slogan, because it has gathered some brand image
and mass behind it, and I do think that most people advocating NN do
understand it as a socio-political issue and not a technical issue. 

I have neither a technical background, nor much interest in technical
issues, and am myself looking it from a political and advocacy angle, which
in my view has taken up some amount of urgency. Obama administration  is
likely to  take up some legislative work on NN very soon - in the early
messiahnic zeal of a government voted on the pomise of some real change -
and however much I hate a single country determinine global political
issues, what gets decided in the Washington's corridors of power during this
period may have an irreversible impact on the future of the Internet. 

In this context, I am really bothered whether NN would get understood as how
Obama himself put it

""What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and
the various portals through which you're getting information over the
Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to
different Web sites...so you could get much better quality from the Fox News
site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites," he
went on. "And that I think destroys one of the best things about the
Internet--which is that there is this incredible equality there." (
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html )

or as Lawrence Lessig, who is tipped to become in some way or the other a
close adviser to Obama on this issue, sees it. Lessig says that charging
content providers differentially is ok by his definition of NN. 

It is my humble opinion that between these two positions lies a world of
difference, and the real battle will be situated in this space. I think the
Internet as we know  - and as we cherish in its egalitarian qualities - will
be history if Lessig's version of NN is adopted by the new US
administration. This in my view is the point in NN debate and advocacy that
requires urgent attention. 

In this context it is especially important that the IGC makes all effort to
see that NN becomes a central issue on the IGF's agenda this year. 

parminder 

Ian Peter wrote: 

I hear the call that net neutrality needs to be an ongoing discussion with
IGF and we should include it in our submissions in February.

But I have the same trouble with net neutrality as I do with end to end.
Both are being used as some sort of architectural principle that guarantees
the public good, when their inclusion in network architecture was more a
feature of the simple dumb network than some sort of intelligent design to
protect future generations of internet users from a range of abuses foreseen
decades ago. 

Both architectural principles are subject to distortions and the future
Internet will be neither fully end to end nor fully neutral. In fact, as
dogmatic network architectures they have already disappeared and it's of no
use to us to argue against internal corporate networks (a breach of end to
end)or traffic shaping (a breach of network neutrality) and all such. It's
not what it's all about.

The purpose of both end to end and net neutrality discussions from our
perspective should be to guarantee that a future Internet possesses certain
qualities which have made the Internet the valuable facility it is. I think
we confuse these fundamental requirements by making them absolute
architectural principles that lead to these being discussed as carrier and
network management issues rather than user issues. 

So to me the questions are - what are the desirable network qualities that
we are looking to protect or enhance? Can we express them another way?

Some better language might help us to get better results. Governments will
tend to understand some basic principles, but when vague terms are thrown at
them such as end to end or network neutrality that have a range of meanings
there are more likely to just bow to commercial interests who can point out
in plain English to them their problems with the concepts.

So I think I am agreeing with Carlos and George, but trying to point out
there might be a problem in the way we are addressing the subject. But I
don't expect to win that one for a while yet.....

Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
Sent: 09 January 2009 02:02
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Parminder
Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian
Beaton; isolatedn at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality

All,

I like very much Carlos' suggested approach of focusing on net
neutrality.  In addition to addressing edge-content manipulation by
ISPs for whatever reason, it addresses the issue where (1) XXX is a
government, and packets in one or both directions may just end up in
the gulag (and sometimes with their senders and recipients, too!);
and (2) the potentially more beneficial case where SIPs are trying to
do spam control or other damage control of some kind.  Note that this
would also diversion of traffic to alternate recipients, or simply
inspection of traffic in transit (e.g. the Great Chinese Firewall)

There are, of course, different definitions of net neutrality, and
there are some thoughtful and challenging papers that address the
subject.  It's probably worth at least establishing and contrasting
definitions, but more important, understanding what they imply for
users in areas such as privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy.  I
agree with Carlos in that much of what I've seen does not concentrate
upon implications for the user.

I have never seen from an ISP a clear statement by an ISP of what the
ISP does with respect to traffic manipulation (if anything), and I
would think that a reasonable goal should be to establish a framework
that allows/requires an ISP to declare, in simple language or
languages, its policies with respect to content manipulation and
delivery.  This is most necessary and useful at the local level,
where there is one path to the user's computer.  Although higher tier
ISPs have the capability to make the same declaration, it's not
useful to the user in that the routes traversed by packets are likely
to belong to multiple carriers and in theory may even vary, packet by
packet.

This is a REAL Internet governance topic.

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~

At 12:34 PM -0200 1/8/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:

Regarding the growing drive for doing ever more complex analyses under
the "net neutrality" umbrella, I would recommend Sandvig's article
(unfortunately, the English version is available for a price at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/art0

0012),

which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
(www.politics.org.br). If you can manage Portuguese, please download the
PDF version under a CC licence from the site.

In reading the recent contributions (including Sandvig's), I feel most
if not all of them do not take the user approach to NN in consideration.
I mean, I am sitting at a home in X city in Y state in Z country using
XXX ADSL operator and such and such things which seem to reveal packet
manipulation of some sort on the part of the XXX operator is happening.
How do I deal with it, what are the legal/regulatory handles (or lack
thereof) I can use to protect myself against such manipulation, what
political involvement I should consider to change this (thinking of the
brainers who try and write action-oriented papers) and so on.

However, in any case and whatever the approach, I insist in considering
NN (whatever the name you wish to choose for it) a key topic for IGF.

frt rgds

--c.a.

-----------------<<snip>>-----------------------

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                              george.sadowsky at gmail.com
2182 Birch Way                           george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Woodstock, VT  05091-8155               http://www.georgesadowsky.org/
tel: +1.802.457.3370                       GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020       Grand Central:
+1.202.370.7734
SKYPE: sadowsky
____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090109/dd2fd1e7/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