[governance] What is Network Neutrality

[Parminder]

Michael

>approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
>discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
>towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
>of NN from a user/civil society perspective.

Carlos's and George's formulations are important parts of network 
neutrality (NN). George wants, in his words,
"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. "

If I paraphrase it right, Carlos further calls for some clarity, and 
specific provisions, about what a user can do - in terms of remedies 
open to her - if she finds that traffic is being inappropriately 
manipulated.

Both the above need to be ensured. Thas very important. But IMHO they 
come after some kind of clarity  and acceptance about what constitutes  
inappropriate traffic violation,  (or conversely, NN). Otherwise, what 
if an ISP declares a policy of two to three kinds of transmission 
service as per different payment slabs, and then adheres to it 
sincerely, and also announces means of redress if found violating. I 
dont see this as fulfilling the requirement of NN.

A statement of self-defined principles can go  a long way in addressing 
ad hoc discriminatory practices, which can, or are likely, to be 
considered patently and obviously wrong. Such statements can also be 
tested in the courts against normal competition and anti-trust laws. 
However, transparent declaration of self-defined policy, and possible 
means of redressal, while being important, by themselves do not fill in 
for the need to have some clear public interest principles and 
regulations defining and enforcing NN. I dont think discussing such 
principles takes the discussion to avoidable semantics area, away from a 
user perspective.

To quote again from Obama's technology doc

"Users must be free to access  content, to use applications, and to 
attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and 
honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not 
enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that 
limit the freedom of expression on the Internet...... " (full quote in 
my previous email)

Parminder

Michael Gurstein wrote:
> I haven't been following this discussion as closely as I could have (being
> pre-occupied with more immediate issues) but I must say that I see much
> value in the approach suggested by George and Carlos which shifts the
> discussion away from semantic/technical issues of the definition of NN and
> towards the underlying (overarching) questions of the possible significance
> of NN from a user/civil society perspective.
>
> It seems to me that approaching NN from the perspective of technical
> definition is likely to be something of a waste of time (over the longer
> term) since what NN will mean (and how it can be managed/or not) will depend
> on transient technical capacities and designs.
>
> The underlying/overarching issues/principles of Internet
> governance/management (or not) is surely what needs to be addressed and in
> that I'm wondering whether an approach based on notions of the Internet as a
> "public trust" might not be the direction to look.  Identifying/prescribing
> something as a "public trust" has a long history dating back for example to
> the legalization of notions of a public commons where there is a need to
> develop a legal framework to govern on-going processes of decision making in
> araes where there is an overarching public interest but where there are also
> on-going elements of private interest, government involvement and so on and
> so on.
>
> The Law of the Sea is one such area globally but many individual countries
> have legilsation for managing of areas where the public interest requires a
> management framework to determine an appropriate balance between competing
> local private, group and public interests.
>
> If anything in our time can be identified as a global "public trust" surely
> it is the Internet and developing strategies for managing and governing of
> this would provide a framework within which the transient issues and
> competitive interests underlying NN among others could be worked out in some
> kind of way supportive of the overall public interest.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] 
> Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
> 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/ar
>> t00012),
>> 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>>-----------------------
>
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090111/83e94ee2/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