[governance] What is

[George Sadowsky]

Lee,

You're right in that this information should be included in a 
customer (end user) level SLA.  And in fact it might be there, even 
in my SLA with my provider.  The problem is that the agreements I've 
seen like many software license agreements, are long and complex, and 
the policies may in fact change over time without the ISP updating 
any of its SLAs.

A number of years ago there was a major simplification of the 
language used in insurance contracts in the United States, where 
legalese was abandoned in favor of a much simpler form of expressing 
the terms of the contracts.  It made a big difference in the consumer 
space.   What I'm suggesting is that the same change occur with 
existing (and non-existent) SLAs, and that  such a policy statement 
be posted and available from every ISP in a simple, easy to read and 
comprehend form, and furthermore that it apply equally to all 
customers in a particular service class.

Only when it is possible for the average user to compare such 
statements across providers will it be possible for customers to 
discriminate in favor of providers whose transmission policies are 
best for them.

George

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

At 12:09 PM -0500 1/12/09, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I also agree/hope we can get to a short, succinct, and 
>internationally 'acceptable' set of standards or recommendations.
>
>Starting perhaps with:
>1)"not discarding messages without informing the user,"
>2) "not diverting content to others (such as the police)without a 
>legally obtained warrant or equivalent." and
>3) "ISPs being obliged/expected to disclose what (their) delivery 
>policies are." 
>
>With regard to 3), from a service contract perspective, this would 
>be embedded in a 'Consumer Service Level Agreement' between ISP & 
>user. Maximum KBPS or MBPS are typically touted today, but not much 
>info is available to users on 1) 2) and 3). Bill Lehr and I called 
>for consumer sla's back in '02 in an article, but got no traction at 
>the time. This feels like we are off to a more auspicious start at 
>describing what a personal SLA should cover.
>
>Meaning both user and provider consent and consensus would be expected.
>
>I also agree a label or icon affixed by ISPs pledging to their 
>customers to abide by whatever short list we come up with, could be 
>useful.
>
>Lee
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>Sent: Sun 1/11/2009 10:47 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Michael Gurstein
>Cc: 'McTim'; 'Steve Anderson'; Milton L Mueller; 'Brian Beaton'; 
>isolatedn at gmail.com
>Subject: Re: [governance] What is Network Neutrality
>
>All,
>
>Well, this is a discussion that seems to be going somewhere, and
>without a lot of verbosity.  That's good.
>
>Parminder has grasped what Carlos and I were saying.  But I am
>hesitant about taking the net step forward in detail, because
>"appropriate" depends upon cultural context.
>
>I would agree that there are gross (in the sense of large) standards
>of appropriateness, such as not discarding messages without informing
>the user, not diverting content to others (such as the police)
>without a legally obtained warrant or equivalent.  Wen you get to the
>details, however, they will vary country by country, as well as
>opinion by opinion.
>
>I do see Parminder's suggestion as helpful in beginning to formulate
>such a list, but I would not want to see a lot of effort go on around
>the "edges" of such a list, with increasing arguments about what
>should go on and what should not go on a list.
>
>One of the advantages of having ISPs lay out precisely what their
>delivery policies are (my suggestion) and understanding what the user
>can do about it, i.e. what degrees of freedom users have (Carlos'
>suggestion) is that at least on multiple provider neighborhoods there
>exists the possibility of competition in the delivery space.  If one
>ISP has a less desirable delivery policy than another, at least it
>will be clear to the users what the situation is, and they can select
>their provider accordingly.
>
>BTW, note that it is possible to have this entire discussion without
>ever mentioning the words "net neutrality."  Given the different
>definitions and occasional quasi-religious arguments using the term,
>I think that's a good thing.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>At 9:51 AM +0530 1/11/09, Parminder wrote:
>>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>mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>>>Sent: January-08-09 5:02 PM
>>>To: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org;
>>>Carlos Afonso; Parminder
>>>Cc: McTim; Steve Anderson; Milton L Mueller; Michael Gurstein; Brian Beaton;
>>><mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>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>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/272/2007/00000009/F0020002/ar
>>>>t00012),
>>>>which we have just published in Portuguese in our magazine poliTICs
>>>>(<http://www.politics.org.br>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>>-----------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>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