[governance] What is Network Neutrality: revised

Mon Jan 12 06:42:36 EST 2009

Dear all

I’m just catching up on this interesting and important conversation.  Following on from Ginger’s comments, I was interested at the IGF to see gathering momentum around the notion of building an internet governance regime based on values and principles that are derived from human rights standards.  Hopefully the BoR coalition will move forward on this over the course of the year.  These discussions about net neutrality are very relevant, and I agree about the need for a short, powerful statement that could then be backed up by a longer argument/discussion.

As I see it, there are a number of values that I think a range of internet stakeholders would subscribe to.  In the FoE project we’ve distilled these down to:

- Accessibility

-Diversity and pluralism

- Participatory and transparent governance

-Openness, creativity and innovativeness.

To realise these values, we need policy principles.  Discriminatory access to content would clearly undermine a number of these values.  The policy principle that follows therefore might be: “Networks should be ‘neutral’ in the sense that the flow of content should not be subject to undue or arbitrary discrimination for monetary, cultural or political reasons.  Controls should not be embedded in networks themselves”.

I’d be interested in any thoughts that you have on this approach and wording.  Obviously, worded this way, the principle is still very broad and over arching, and the problem of what is meant by “arbitrary” and “undue” still arises.  But that problem is at least in part dealt with by reference back to human rights standards and the values that derive from them.   I wonder if the next step would be to create some kind of directory of scenarios that would explore what it would mean in practice for different stakeholders.  Parminder’s list might be the beginnings of that.

In reference to whether we should be using the term “net neutrality”, I think that it is messy and controversial.  The concept of “neutral” is also problematic, as arguing that policy should be rooted in values is in tension with the idea that policy or technology should be neutral.  However, I do think it’s still useful as a signpost term, as people automatically know what kinds of issues are being referred to.

All the best,

Lisa

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Sent: 09 January 2009 09:58
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: 'Ginger Paque'
Subject: RV: [governance] What is Network Neutrality: revised

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  J -- 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  J -- 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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3752 (20090108) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3753 (20090109) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3758 (20090112) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/be53a1f6/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