From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 1 05:00:02 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:00:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] History of the IGF Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Avri, Milton, Bill & Co. With regard to our Meissen discussion on the history of the IGF I found in my archives two statements long before Tunis which I made on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus and where "forum function" and "multistakeholderism" were key points. In the Paris Statement (July 2003) we called it the "Global Information Society Observation Council" (GISOC). The GISOC proposal more or less outlined functions which later reflected in the Tunis mandate for the IGF. The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted by Bill and me on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and proposed the launch of the IGF. The whole IG discussion within WSIS was kick started during PrepCom2 in June 2003 in Geneva when we had, inter alia, a Workshop "Civil Society and WSIS" in the official programme of PrepCom2 organized (and moderated) by Bertrand and me. (21 February, 10:00-13:00 - ILO building - Workshop lll: CIVIL SOCIETY AND WSIS. see flyer >> 27 kB [English ] ). http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/prepcom/pc2/inf/index.html After the workshop we moved to the ILO rerstaurant where we discussed the need to establish an institutionalized platform which we called "CS Internet Governance Caucus" (IGC). Originally, Internet Governance was not a main issue in the WSIS. First priority for WSIS was bridging the digital divide, however the ITU was very interested to bring the IG debate under the WSIS umbrella as a counterplatform to ICANN, which as established in 1998 as an alternative to ITU efforts to get the control over the DNS and the A Root Server. The IG debate within WSIS was triggered by the the "Beirut Declaration" (February 2003), the regional ministerial conference for West Asia which includes the following paragraph "Securing national domain names: The responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with a suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries' top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those of the civil society." The rumor says that the ITU was not satisfied with the outcome of the other four regional ministerial conferences, where Internet Governance was sidelined. To get a "mandate" for IG, the Beirut conference was the last chance for the ITU to include it into the WSIS agenda as a high priority issue. I myself did not participate in the Beirut conference, but I was told that YJ Pak from Korea made the relevant statement which then was reflected in the "Beirut Declaration". If you compare the "Beirut Statenment" with the "Paris/Geneva statements" you see a difference. Insofar - looking backwards - it was not a surprise, that when YJ and I co-chaired the IGC in the first WSIS phase until December 2003, we had some internal disputes and it was not easy to reach consensus within the IGC from the very early day ;-(((. However, the net result - seven years later - is that we avoided to bring DNS etc. under an intergovernmental control/oversight mechanism and we were able to launch a multistakeholder IGF. Nice history, isn´t it? Do other people have more documents in their archives? Probably it would make sense to write a short history of the IGF. Too late for the UN GA in 2010, but probably helpful for the forthcoming deeper IGF evalution forseen for 2011. Wolfgang Here is the key part of the Paris statement " In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a meeting point for improved coordination, consultation and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed of representatives of governments, private industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of information, experiences and best practices on issues from privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st Century. We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed language for the Items 33 and 44. WSIS Interesessional, Paris, July 2003 http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.pdf Here is another Statement I made a year later in the GFC meeting on Multistakeholderism WSIS Group of the Friends of the Chair, Geneva, September 2004 http://www.worldsummit2005.de/downloa d_en/Speech-Geneva-2004-10-Kleinwaechter.pdf Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Aug 1 09:05:39 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:05:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] History of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C557123.6050303@cafonso.ca> Quite interesting recollection, Wolf. So it seems the seminal IG proposals derive from the multilateral Beirut declaration of Feb.2003. For me was an interesting time, as I was joining the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee again (my first Icann meeting was the Rome one in March 2003 incidentally) after helping to build a proposal for a multistakeholder CGI.br to the new federal government (Lula), which was basically accepted. At the time, I had no idea of the Beirut meeting and got in contact with this new "universe" as my NGO also joined the WSIS process. I think putting together the many historical pieces could result in an interesting story indeed. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/01/2010 06:00 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi Avri, Milton, Bill& Co. > > With regard to our Meissen discussion on the history of the IGF I > found in my archives two statements long before Tunis which I made on > behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus and where > "forum function" and "multistakeholderism" were key points. In the > Paris Statement (July 2003) we called it the "Global Information > Society Observation Council" (GISOC). The GISOC proposal more or less > outlined functions which later reflected in the Tunis mandate for the > IGF. The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted by Bill and me > on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in > September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and > proposed the launch of the IGF. > > The whole IG discussion within WSIS was kick started during PrepCom2 > in June 2003 in Geneva when we had, inter alia, a Workshop "Civil > Society and WSIS" in the official programme of PrepCom2 organized > (and moderated) by Bertrand and me. (21 February, 10:00-13:00 - ILO > building - Workshop lll: CIVIL SOCIETY AND WSIS. see flyer>> 27 kB > [English ] > ). http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/prepcom/pc2/inf/index.html > After the workshop we moved to the ILO rerstaurant where we discussed > the need to establish an institutionalized platform which we called > "CS Internet Governance Caucus" (IGC). Originally, Internet > Governance was not a main issue in the WSIS. First priority for WSIS > was bridging the digital divide, however the ITU was very interested > to bring the IG debate under the WSIS umbrella as a counterplatform > to ICANN, which as established in 1998 as an alternative to ITU > efforts to get the control over the DNS and the A Root Server. > > The IG debate within WSIS was triggered by the the "Beirut > Declaration" (February 2003), the regional ministerial conference for > West Asia which includes the following paragraph "Securing national > domain names: The responsibility for root directories and domain > names should rest with a suitable international organization and > should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries' > top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment > should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each > nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should > be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should take into > account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those > of the civil society." > > The rumor says that the ITU was not satisfied with the outcome of the > other four regional ministerial conferences, where Internet > Governance was sidelined. To get a "mandate" for IG, the Beirut > conference was the last chance for the ITU to include it into the > WSIS agenda as a high priority issue. I myself did not participate in > the Beirut conference, but I was told that YJ Pak from Korea made the > relevant statement which then was reflected in the "Beirut > Declaration". If you compare the "Beirut Statenment" with the > "Paris/Geneva statements" you see a difference. Insofar - looking > backwards - it was not a surprise, that when YJ and I co-chaired the > IGC in the first WSIS phase until December 2003, we had some internal > disputes and it was not easy to reach consensus within the IGC from > the very early day ;-(((. However, the net result - seven years > later - is that we avoided to bring DNS etc. under an > intergovernmental control/oversight mechanism and we were able to > launch a multistakeholder IGF. Nice history, isn´t it? > > Do other people have more documents in their archives? Probably it > would make sense to write a short history of the IGF. Too late for > the UN GA in 2010, but probably helpful for the forthcoming deeper > IGF evalution forseen for 2011. > > Wolfgang > > > > Here is the key part of the Paris statement > > " In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we > invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global > > Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a > meeting point for improved coordination, consultation > > and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed > of representatives of governments, private > > industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of > information, experiences and best practices on issues from > > privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from > Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences > > of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of > inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st > > Century. We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed > language for the Items 33 and 44. > > > WSIS Interesessional, Paris, July 2003 > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.pdf > > Here is another Statement I made a year later in the GFC meeting on > Multistakeholderism > > WSIS Group of the Friends of the Chair, Geneva, September 2004 > http://www.worldsummit2005.de/downloa > d_en/Speech-Geneva-2004-10-Kleinwaechter.pdf > > > Wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Aug 1 09:40:46 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:40:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] History of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4C557123.6050303@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C557123.6050303@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4C55795E.6090706@cafonso.ca> Oooops, sorry, Icann meeting Rio 2003, not Rome... --c.a. On 08/01/2010 10:05 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Quite interesting recollection, Wolf. So it seems the seminal IG > proposals derive from the multilateral Beirut declaration of Feb.2003. > For me was an interesting time, as I was joining the Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee again (my first Icann meeting was the Rome one in > March 2003 incidentally) after helping to build a proposal for a > multistakeholder CGI.br to the new federal government (Lula), which was > basically accepted. At the time, I had no idea of the Beirut meeting and > got in contact with this new "universe" as my NGO also joined the WSIS > process. > > I think putting together the many historical pieces could result in an > interesting story indeed. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/01/2010 06:00 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Hi Avri, Milton, Bill& Co. >> >> With regard to our Meissen discussion on the history of the IGF I >> found in my archives two statements long before Tunis which I made on >> behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus and where >> "forum function" and "multistakeholderism" were key points. In the >> Paris Statement (July 2003) we called it the "Global Information >> Society Observation Council" (GISOC). The GISOC proposal more or less >> outlined functions which later reflected in the Tunis mandate for the >> IGF. The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted by Bill and me >> on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in >> September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and >> proposed the launch of the IGF. >> >> The whole IG discussion within WSIS was kick started during PrepCom2 >> in June 2003 in Geneva when we had, inter alia, a Workshop "Civil >> Society and WSIS" in the official programme of PrepCom2 organized >> (and moderated) by Bertrand and me. (21 February, 10:00-13:00 - ILO >> building - Workshop lll: CIVIL SOCIETY AND WSIS. see flyer>> 27 kB >> [English ] >> ). http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/prepcom/pc2/inf/index.html >> After the workshop we moved to the ILO rerstaurant where we discussed >> the need to establish an institutionalized platform which we called >> "CS Internet Governance Caucus" (IGC). Originally, Internet >> Governance was not a main issue in the WSIS. First priority for WSIS >> was bridging the digital divide, however the ITU was very interested >> to bring the IG debate under the WSIS umbrella as a counterplatform >> to ICANN, which as established in 1998 as an alternative to ITU >> efforts to get the control over the DNS and the A Root Server. >> >> The IG debate within WSIS was triggered by the the "Beirut >> Declaration" (February 2003), the regional ministerial conference for >> West Asia which includes the following paragraph "Securing national >> domain names: The responsibility for root directories and domain >> names should rest with a suitable international organization and >> should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries' >> top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment >> should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each >> nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should >> be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should take into >> account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those >> of the civil society." >> >> The rumor says that the ITU was not satisfied with the outcome of the >> other four regional ministerial conferences, where Internet >> Governance was sidelined. To get a "mandate" for IG, the Beirut >> conference was the last chance for the ITU to include it into the >> WSIS agenda as a high priority issue. I myself did not participate in >> the Beirut conference, but I was told that YJ Pak from Korea made the >> relevant statement which then was reflected in the "Beirut >> Declaration". If you compare the "Beirut Statenment" with the >> "Paris/Geneva statements" you see a difference. Insofar - looking >> backwards - it was not a surprise, that when YJ and I co-chaired the >> IGC in the first WSIS phase until December 2003, we had some internal >> disputes and it was not easy to reach consensus within the IGC from >> the very early day ;-(((. However, the net result - seven years >> later - is that we avoided to bring DNS etc. under an >> intergovernmental control/oversight mechanism and we were able to >> launch a multistakeholder IGF. Nice history, isn´t it? >> >> Do other people have more documents in their archives? Probably it >> would make sense to write a short history of the IGF. Too late for >> the UN GA in 2010, but probably helpful for the forthcoming deeper >> IGF evalution forseen for 2011. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> Here is the key part of the Paris statement >> >> " In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we >> invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global >> >> Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a >> meeting point for improved coordination, consultation >> >> and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed >> of representatives of governments, private >> >> industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of >> information, experiences and best practices on issues from >> >> privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from >> Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences >> >> of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of >> inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st >> >> Century. We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed >> language for the Items 33 and 44. >> >> >> WSIS Interesessional, Paris, July 2003 >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.pdf >> >> Here is another Statement I made a year later in the GFC meeting on >> Multistakeholderism >> >> WSIS Group of the Friends of the Chair, Geneva, September 2004 >> http://www.worldsummit2005.de/downloa >> d_en/Speech-Geneva-2004-10-Kleinwaechter.pdf >> >> >> Wolfgang >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Aug 3 02:43:49 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] BlackBerry Service to be Suspended in UAE from October 11 In-Reply-To: References: <4c443a5d.e8e9d80a.5497.77e0@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EC5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <825221.63663.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Friends, i would like to share some information about the BlackBerry Services which is being suspended in UAE and about hundred of thousand users will affect.   CircleID News Post Reference: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100802_blackberry_service_to_be_suspended_in_uae_from_october_11/   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (TRA) announced on Sunday to ban Blackberry Services, this ban will take effect on October 11. This ban will affect hundreds of thousands of BlackBerry users who access Internet, e-mail and messaging services on their mobile handsets. The ban may be extended to foreign visitors (BlackBerry Roaming services), whereas about 100,000 passengers pass through the UAE airport daily.   BlackBerry messaging is secure but encrypted mode service which is based on BlackBerry Internet (GPRS/EDGE) to deliver text messages wirelessly using push technology of Research in Motion (RIM). Encrypted mode text messaging means that text messaging is beyond the readability of any middleware text base searching tools, if that is configured by any ISP or regulatory authorities.   Etisalat and DU both have to follow the regulations of TRA and to minimize their service.   Kuwait may also block BlackBerry services, following Saudi Arabia and UAE decision.   Comments of BlackBerry Service Users are being invited by by Gulf News on how they are affected by the decision.   Alternate Solution – Alternatively, the resident users will have to select one of following two options: 1. Either they have to use alternate (compatible) mobile phone and use BlackBerry Connect Services. 2. Or they have to leave BlackBerry Push Email Services and have to migrate (completely) on the other mobile phone devices which provide Email Synchronization Push or without Push Services. In this case, new mobile phone will be configured to access email and/or global contact database from email servers but there is no option available for data security or remote wipeout. Similarly, without Push Email Service, users will only be able to pick email message whenever they will click to synchronize. However, adopting either case, they would not be able to use BlackBerry Messenger. They have to shift either on text SMS service or onto Yahoo/Google or Live Messaging services on their mobile phones.   Investment of millions of dollar is on the risk which is related to the provisioning of BlackBerry Services and includes BlackBerry Enterprise Server Licenses, Hardware Machines, BlackBerry Phone Devices and Internet Services. However, this business will be migrated onto other email service compatible mobile phones such as Nokia, iPhone and Windows Mobile Phones. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Aug 3 05:36:10 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 02:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] BlackBerry Service to be Suspended in UAE from October 11 In-Reply-To: <825221.63663.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4c443a5d.e8e9d80a.5497.77e0@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EC5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <825221.63663.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <31642.28434.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just to update review comments that the above listed first option for alternate solution will not work, if the BlackBerry Services are completely withdrawn by the all of the Mobile Phone Operators. In this way BlackBerry Service will also be terminated which includes traffic to the RIM Service Centers. All of the current data traffic of BlackBerry is routed through RIM Service Centers. If the regulating authority declare all encapsulated/encrypted traffic as not bound, roaming users will also be badly affected.   According to CNN this decision may affect about half million users.   So, in short, only second option left behind to access email messaging service on the move and to remain in contact with the office and rest of the world.   Thanks, Imran http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100802_blackberry_service_to_be_suspended_in_uae_from_october_11/#6877   ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Tue, 3 August, 2010 11:43:49 Subject: [governance] BlackBerry Service to be Suspended in UAE from October 11 Dear Friends, i would like to share some information about the BlackBerry Services which is being suspended in UAE and about hundred of thousand users will affect.   CircleID News Post Reference: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100802_blackberry_service_to_be_suspended_in_uae_from_october_11/   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (TRA) announced on Sunday to ban Blackberry Services, this ban will take effect on October 11. This ban will affect hundreds of thousands of BlackBerry users who access Internet, e-mail and messaging services on their mobile handsets. The ban may be extended to foreign visitors (BlackBerry Roaming services), whereas about 100,000 passengers pass through the UAE airport daily.   BlackBerry messaging is secure but encrypted mode service which is based on BlackBerry Internet (GPRS/EDGE) to deliver text messages wirelessly using push technology of Research in Motion (RIM). Encrypted mode text messaging means that text messaging is beyond the readability of any middleware text base searching tools, if that is configured by any ISP or regulatory authorities.   Etisalat and DU both have to follow the regulations of TRA and to minimize their service.   Kuwait may also block BlackBerry services, following Saudi Arabia and UAE decision.   Comments of BlackBerry Service Users are being invited by by Gulf News on how they are affected by the decision.   Alternate Solution – Alternatively, the resident users will have to select one of following two options: 1. Either they have to use alternate (compatible) mobile phone and use BlackBerry Connect Services. 2. Or they have to leave BlackBerry Push Email Services and have to migrate (completely) on the other mobile phone devices which provide Email Synchronization Push or without Push Services. In this case, new mobile phone will be configured to access email and/or global contact database from email servers but there is no option available for data security or remote wipeout. Similarly, without Push Email Service, users will only be able to pick email message whenever they will click to synchronize. However, adopting either case, they would not be able to use BlackBerry Messenger. They have to shift either on text SMS service or onto Yahoo/Google or Live Messaging services on their mobile phones.   Investment of millions of dollar is on the risk which is related to the provisioning of BlackBerry Services and includes BlackBerry Enterprise Server Licenses, Hardware Machines, BlackBerry Phone Devices and Internet Services. However, this business will be migrated onto other email service compatible mobile phones such as Nokia, iPhone and Windows Mobile Phones. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Aug 3 07:19:03 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:19:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICANN NomCom Chair sought Message-ID: FYI Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible. Dear all, ICANN is looking for a Chair for the Nominating Committee (NomCom). The NomCom Chair is responsible for organising the NomCom in its activities to select certain ICANN Board members and individuals who will serve in key leadership positions within ICANN’s supporting organisations (SO) and advisory committees (AC). If you are interested in this position, see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jul10-en.htm ICANN has extended the deadline for applications, which are now taken until the 30th August 2010. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ruth at lacnic.net Tue Aug 3 09:48:32 2010 From: ruth at lacnic.net (Ruth Puente) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:48:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?LAC_Pre_IGF_Remote_participation/par?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ticipaci=F3n_remota?= Message-ID: <4C581E30.60902@lacnic.net> Español debajo ******** Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available in all sessions. For remote participation options, please click in the following link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site at: http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC --------------------------------- Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de seguir el evento por webcasting. Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del evento: http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC ================================== ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 11:53:09 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:53:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Remote participation III LAC prep meeting for the IGF Message-ID: Sorry for the cross-posting. The link to watch the streaming and participate remotely in the III Latin American preparatory meeting for the IGF is below. The meeting will start in some minutes. Best wishes, Marília ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adriana Rivero Date: 2010/8/3 Subject: [LACNIC/Anuncios] Pre IGF participación remota/Remote participation To: anuncios at lacnic.net English Below ===== Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de seguir el evento por webcasting. Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del evento: http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC ================================== Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third regional preparatory meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available in all sessions. For remote participation options, please click in the following link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site at: http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC _______________________________________________ Anuncios mailing list Anuncios at lacnic.net https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/anuncios -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Tue Aug 3 12:30:31 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:30:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: <4C581E30.60902@lacnic.net> Message-ID: I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating in trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally not easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote participation as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from my home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work to accomplish this access for all! Best, Janna On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > > Español debajo > ******** > > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting > of the Internet Governance Forum. > > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available > in all sessions. > > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site at: > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > --------------------------------- > > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. > > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de > seguir el evento por webcasting. > > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del > evento: > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > ================================== > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 12:40:09 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:10:09 -0430 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote--now functioning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C584669.10706@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 12:42:23 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:42:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: References: <4C581E30.60902@lacnic.net> Message-ID: Dear Janna, Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind of information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those who are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly depends on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible bottlenecks and broadband in each country. It is important that you mentioned it because for us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some seconds of delay. The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and solutions need to be found. It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope that this will be the case. I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team here in Quito. Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using #LACIGF). Thanks! Marília On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: > I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I > applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - > by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream > video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, > and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating > in > trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the > list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally > not > easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical > assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an > event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having > been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote > participation > as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through > live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from > my > home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work > to > accomplish this access for all! > > Best, > Janna > > On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > > > > > > Español debajo > > ******** > > > > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting > > of the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available > > in all sessions. > > > > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site > at: > > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria > > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. > > > > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de > > seguir el evento por webcasting. > > > > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de > > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del > > evento: > > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > Associate Professor > School of Communications > Elon University > andersj at elon.edu > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Tue Aug 3 13:07:55 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:07:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, I know how important feedback on live performance is! Actually, I meant to say in my previous e-mail that I was experiencing difficulties in seeing video and hearing audio later in Quito time, after the meeting was well under way. Right now ­ 1 p.m. Eastern (New York) US time - I have no live media being delivered on the Ustream window, but I can look at the archived version of the morning. What I see is a still frame that is showing PowerPoint slides ­ the first one, titled Actividades de LACNIC, was on the screen for an extended period before the video started to move on to additional slides. The slides are accompanied by scratchy audio that is occasionally breaking up to the point where you miss a few words. This is the recording named ³igf-lac 08/03/10 09:54AM.² Again, thank you SO much for your efforts! On 8/3/10 12:42 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > Dear Janna, > > Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind of > information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those who > are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly depends > on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible bottlenecks and > broadband in each country. It is important that you mentioned it because for > us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some seconds of delay. > > The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and > solutions need to be found.  It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope that > this will be the case. > > I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team here > in Quito. > > Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using #LACIGF). > > Thanks! > > Marília > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: >> I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I >> applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - >> by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream >> video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, >> and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating in >> trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the >> list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally not >> easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical >> assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an >> event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having >> been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote participation >> as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through >> live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from my >> home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work to >> accomplish this access for all! >> >> Best, >> Janna >> >> On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Español debajo >>> > ******** >>> > >>> > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting >>> > of the Internet Governance Forum. >>> > >>> > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available >>> > in all sessions. >>> > >>> > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: >>> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >>> > >>> > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site >>> at: >>> > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >>> > >>> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >>> > >>> > --------------------------------- >>> > >>> > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria >>> > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. >>> > >>> > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de >>> > seguir el evento por webcasting. >>> > >>> > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de >>> > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: >>> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >>> > >>> > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del >>> > evento: >>> > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >>> > >>> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >>> > >>> > ================================== >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor of Communications >> Director of Internet Projects >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Aug 3 13:23:06 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote--now functioning In-Reply-To: <4C584669.10706@paque.net> References: <4C584669.10706@paque.net> Message-ID: <110587.18060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Ginger Sorry I cant make it. I'm on my way to Mexico City for a speaking engagement. Hope to hear about the highlights from you Shaila ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Janna Anderson Cc: Ruth Puente Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 9:40:09 AM Subject: Re: [governance] LAC PreIGF Remote--now functioning Thanks for the follow-up and support, Janna. The webcast is now functioning. The meeting started at 11 a.m., with audio and the powerpoint presentation, and is now full webcast and chat. If anyone needs help, please feel free to contact me on Skype at gingerpaque. On 8/3/2010 12:00 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I >applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - >by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream >video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, >and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating in >trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the >list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally not >easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical >assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an >event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having >been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote participation >as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through >live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from my >home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work to >accomplish this access for all! > >Best, >Janna > >On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > >Españoldebajo >>******** >> >>Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting >>of the Internet Governance Forum. >> >>The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available >>in all sessions. >> >>For remote participation options, please click in the following link: >>http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> >>More information on the PreIGF, is available from the meeting web site at: >>http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> >>NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> >>--------------------------------- >> >>Hoycomienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercerareunión regional preparatoria >>delForodeGobernanzade Internet. >> >>En todaslassesioneshabráposibilidadesdeparticipaciónremota y de >>seguireleventoporwebcasting. >> >>Para participarremotamente en la reuniónpreparatoriadelForode >>Gobernanzade Internet, accedaalsiguiente link: >>http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> >>MásinformaciónsobreelPreIGF, estádisponible en elsitio web del >>evento: >>http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> >>NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> >>================================== >> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 13:25:29 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:25:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Telly says she's watching in St Kitts De On 3 August 2010 13:07, Janna Anderson wrote: > Yes, I know how important feedback on live performance is! Actually, I > meant to say in my previous e-mail that I was experiencing difficulties in > seeing video and hearing audio later in Quito time, after the meeting was > well under way. > > Right now – 1 p.m. Eastern (New York) US time - I have no live media being > delivered on the Ustream window, but I can look at the archived version of > the morning. What I see is a still frame that is showing PowerPoint slides – > the first one, titled Actividades de LACNIC, was on the screen for an > extended period before the video started to move on to additional slides. > The slides are accompanied by scratchy audio that is occasionally breaking > up to the point where you miss a few words. This is the recording named > “igf-lac 08/03/10 09:54AM.” > > Again, thank you SO much for your efforts! > > > > On 8/3/10 12:42 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > > Dear Janna, > > Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind of > information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those who > are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly depends > on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible bottlenecks and > broadband in each country. It is important that you mentioned it because for > us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some seconds of delay. > > The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and > solutions need to be found. It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope > that this will be the case. > > I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team > here in Quito. > > Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using > #LACIGF). > > Thanks! > > Marília > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: > > I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I > applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - > by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream > video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, > and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating > in > trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the > list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally > not > easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical > assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an > event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having > been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote > participation > as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through > live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from > my > home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work > to > accomplish this access for all! > > Best, > Janna > > On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > > > > > > Español debajo > > ******** > > > > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting > > of the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available > > in all sessions. > > > > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site > at: > > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria > > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. > > > > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de > > seguir el evento por webcasting. > > > > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de > > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del > > evento: > > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > Associate Professor > School of Communications > Elon University > andersj at elon.edu > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > Associate Professor of Communications > Director of Internet Projects > > School of Communications > Elon University > andersj at elon.edu > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 13:30:20 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:00:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am watching from India, there is some latency ( I notice it from chat ) but otherwise the audio is clear, video (slides) is ok. Congratulations Sivasubramanian M http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Telly says she's watching in St Kitts > De > > > On 3 August 2010 13:07, Janna Anderson wrote: > >> Yes, I know how important feedback on live performance is! Actually, I >> meant to say in my previous e-mail that I was experiencing difficulties in >> seeing video and hearing audio later in Quito time, after the meeting was >> well under way. >> >> Right now – 1 p.m. Eastern (New York) US time - I have no live media >> being delivered on the Ustream window, but I can look at the archived >> version of the morning. What I see is a still frame that is showing >> PowerPoint slides – the first one, titled Actividades de LACNIC, was on the >> screen for an extended period before the video started to move on to >> additional slides. The slides are accompanied by scratchy audio that is >> occasionally breaking up to the point where you miss a few words. This is >> the recording named “igf-lac 08/03/10 09:54AM.” >> >> Again, thank you SO much for your efforts! >> >> >> >> On 8/3/10 12:42 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: >> >> Dear Janna, >> >> Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind >> of information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those >> who are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly >> depends on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible >> bottlenecks and broadband in each country. It is important that you >> mentioned it because for us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some >> seconds of delay. >> >> The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and >> solutions need to be found. It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope >> that this will be the case. >> >> I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team >> here in Quito. >> >> Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using >> #LACIGF). >> >> Thanks! >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: >> >> I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I >> applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - >> by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream >> video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my >> browser, >> and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating >> in >> trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the >> list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally >> not >> easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical >> assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an >> event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having >> been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote >> participation >> as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through >> live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from >> my >> home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work >> to >> accomplish this access for all! >> >> Best, >> Janna >> >> On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Español debajo >> > ******** >> > >> > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting >> > of the Internet Governance Forum. >> > >> > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available >> > in all sessions. >> > >> > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: >> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> > >> > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site >> at: >> > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> > >> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> > >> > --------------------------------- >> > >> > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria >> > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. >> > >> > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de >> > seguir el evento por webcasting. >> > >> > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de >> > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: >> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> > >> > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del >> > evento: >> > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> > >> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> > >> > ================================== >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor of Communications >> Director of Internet Projects >> >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 4 04:30:39 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:30:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] GenderIT.org thematic bulletin Message-ID: <1280910639.2336.364.camel@anriette-laptop> **PLEASE DISSEMINATE WIDELY** (apologies for cross-posting) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *GENDER CENTRED: A GenderIT.org thematic bulletin* APC WNSP – GenderIT.org, 3 August 2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *Privacy and violence against women* I. THOUGHTS AROUND…Claiming communication rights II. NEW ARTICLES III. FEATURED RESOURCES IV. JARGON V. WHO'S WHO VI. FEMINIST TALKS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A new edition examines how violence against women (VAW) affects our privacy rights in the digital age. VAW survivors often experience intrusions into their privacy from their partners, spouses or the State. Moreover, privacy does not always work to women' s advantage. Family-centred approaches to privacy impose modesty and domestic isolation on women and make it hard to enforce domestic violence as a crime. So how have ICTs shifted where we see the line between what is private, and what is public? How much privacy are women comfortable to give up in order to protect themselves from abusive behaviour online? Are national laws ready to deal with the situation when women are not able to leave a violent relationship because their partner has intimate photographs or video clips of them? These are some of the questions GenderIT.org's writers examine in this edition. With this edition we also bring you a new look GenderIT.org. The new format was motivated by our efforts to engage more with GenderIT.org readers and to provide more space for networking and collaboration. We hope you like it! Please send your comments to: genderit at apcwomen.org Flavia, Katerina and Sonia from the GenderIT.org team --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I. THOUGHTS AROUND…Claiming communication rights by Cai Yiping, the Executive Director of Isis International (Isis) “Don't upload your photographs or videos on the pages of social networks, like Facebook or MySpace, nor personal information like emaili account or telephone numbers.” IT techies advise. “I have changed my gender from female to male on skype to avoid some annoying and harassing calls and chats sometimes even popping up in the middle of night or while I am working online.” a young woman shared. “Do women need to hide their gender identities online to protect themselves and feel secure in order to use the new ICTs to express their opinions?” a woman activist asked These are among many questions and concerns raised by participants who attended the APC WNSP workshop on issue of Electronic Violence against Women i(EVAW) last April in Manila Philippines, one of the initiatives of the APC WNSP's MDG3i project Take Back the Tech! to eliminate violence against women taking place in 12 countries. The intersection between violence against women and privacyi rights is at the core of this discussion... Read the full editorial at: www.genderit.org/editorial/thoughts-around-claiming-communication-rights --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- II. NEW ARTICLES *Democratic Republic of the Congo: Two sides of the same ICT coin - breaking the silence /breaking the laws* GenderIT.org writer Mavic Cabrera-Balleza speaks with Sylvie Niombo and Francoise Mukuku, ICT activists from Congo-Brazzaville and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) respectively. They discuss various facets of the information and communication technologies and the context to which they apply in the DRC . The interviewees elaborate on how ICTs can be used to reduce incidence of violence against women and how it is also widely used in ways that aggravate the violence and violate privacy laws. They also explain why access to ICTs is critical to the DRC and how it can be used to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. www.genderit.org/articles/democratic-republic-congo-two-sides-same-ict-coin-breaking-silence-breaking-laws *Pakistan: Jehan Ara talks on censorship, and intrusion into women's space* (audio interview) GenderIT.org editor Sonia Randhawa interviews Jehan Ara, the president of the Pakistan Association of Software Houses for IT & ITES (P at SHA) and a partner in the “MDG3: Take Back The Tech! to end violence against women” project, about privacy, ICTs and violence against women, touching on censorship, and intrusion into women's space by both the State and non-state actors - such as husbands, boyfriends, fathers and family. www.genderit.org/podcast/pakistan-jehan-ara-talks-censorship-and-intrusion-womens-space-audio *South Africa: Privacy and domestic violence online and off* While women's rights activists have been at the forefront of making the private crimes that occur at home - domestic violence, marital rape - public, new technologies are making the private public in ways that disenfranchise, alienate and violate women. Esther Nasikye and Sally-Jean Shackleton explore how ICTs, privacy and domestic violence in South Africa are showing up problems in both policy and practice. www.genderit.org/articles/south-africa-privacy-and-domestic-violence-online-and *Argentina: Strategic use of ICT as a response to violence against women* Although violence against women through information and communication technologies is not yet a matter of public discussion in Argentina, the problem affects the lives of women and girls. A workshop held in Buenos Aires by APC WNSP to guide women in the strategic use of ICTs to combat violence resulted in some interesting initiatives. Concern regarding the irregular use made of cell phones, the growing circulation of pornographic images and the impact of social networks on women’s privacy are some of the points highlighted in the debates at the workshop. In connection with the workshop, Florencia Goldsman and Flavia Fascendini investigate the status of public policies aimed at promoting the use of ICTs to fight violence towards women, and delve further into some of the aspects of privacy and security. www.genderit.org/articles/argentina-strategic-use-ict-response-violence-against-women *South Africa: Pornography and the internet - justifiable protection or entrenching patriarchy?* A draft Bill proposing a ban on sexual content on the internet and cellphones submitted to the South African Department of Home Affairs in May 2010 claims to have the best interests of women and children in mind. The Bill was submitted to the Department, which oversees the Film and Publications Board, by a non-profit organisation called Justice Alliance of South Africa (JASA). What’s the issue, and will censorship work to address problematic representations of women? These are some of questions investigated by Sally-Jean Shackleton. www.genderit.org/articles/south-africa-pornography-and-internet-justifiable-protection-or-entrenching-patriarchy --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- III. FEATURED RESOURCES: 16x16 16 slides x 16 seconds draw the story of how violence against women (VAW) and ICTs link. It builds on a series of papers, providing a snapshot and baseline on the law and policy in these two areas in 12 countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America. The papers are part of the APC WNSP project 'MDG3: Take Back the Tech! to end violence against women' that connects ICTs, VAW and Millennium Development Goal Three (MDG3) in practice, policy and law in 12 countries. The 16x16 idea follows the Pecha-Kucha presentation format which is 20 x 20 - we've adapted it to 16 for the 16 days of activism against gender violence. *16x16:Malaysia* www.genderit.org/resources/16x16-malaysia *16x16:Uganda* www.genderit.org/resources/16x16-uganda *16x16:Rights-violence-technologies* www.genderit.org/resources/16x16-rights-violence-technology-joining-dots --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- IV. JARGON *Privacy* The right to privacy is the right to be free from unwanted or unauthorised intrusion, whether physically or through access to records and information. It is considered one of the hardest human rights to define, codify and protect legally, although it is guaranteed by various international instruments including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Women often experience intrusions into their privacy from both the State and from partners, parents or siblings, restricting and surveilling their movements both on and off line. Privacy issues may also have different contexts and consequences for women. Some speaks in this context about 'good' and 'bad' privacy. Bad or familial privacy, such as imposed modesty, chastity, and domestic isolation, can prevent exposure of spousal and child abuse. Good privacy support individual choice, autonomy and social participation. Source: www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/overview.htm, http://epic.org/privacy/gender/default.html *Violence against women* VAW, or violence against women, means any act that results in harm and disproportionately affects women. The root cause of VAW lies in unequal power relations between men and women in almost all facets of life. Some examples of VAW include domestic violence, rape and sexual harassment. The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women defines VAW as "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life". VAW was recognised as a violation of fundamental human rights in 1993, less than two decades ago, officially through the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women by the United Nations General Assembly. Women's movements across the world are continuously bringing to light new dimensions of VAW, such as 'trafficking in images' and other forms facilitated through the use of new communication and information technologies. However ICTs are also used for prevention of VAW and assistance to VAW survivors. Source: www.takebackthetech.net/whatstheissue See also: *Data protection* : www.genderit.org/glossary/term/984 *Freedom of information* : www.genderit.org/glossary/term/985 To understand unfamiliar ICT or gender terms visit the Jargon section: www.genderit.org/glossary --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- V. WHO'S WHO In this GenderIT.org edition we are introducing six country partners participating in the “MDG3: Take Back The Tech! to end violence against women” project. This is being implemented by the Association for Progressive Communications Women’s Networking Support Programme and it's partners in 12 countries from África, Latin América and Asia, supported by the MDG3 Fund. In the context of this project, these partners have worked on national ICT policy and advocacy, conducted national strategy meetings, localized the Take Back the Tech! campaign, organized training events called Feminist Tech Exchanges, developed issue papers on violence against women and ICTs, and distributed small grants for projects that use ICT to address or prevent violence against women. *Bytes for All* Bytes for All (B4All) is a networked space for citizens in South Asia. It experiments, highlights and organizes debate on the relevance of ICT to development activities. They believe ICTs don't replace the need for good governance or people's rights to equal opportunities, rather ICT can complement this process. It has a really active discussion forum, the Bytes for All Readers Forum http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/bytesforall_readers) that hosts numerous debates and, as they have content sharing arrangements with a number of IT based publications, this content can go offline too. Website: www.bytesforall.net *P at SHA* Pakistan Software Houses Association for IT and ITES (P at SHA) was initiated 15 years ago by a number of software houses in an attempt to create a functional trade association for the IT industry in Pakistan. Aiming to protect the rights of over 350 companies that are active members, P at SHA lobbied the government to initiate policies and create an environment that would attract more firms to join the industry. P at SHA is a platform for promoting, protecting and developing the software industry in Pakistan, and has made consistent efforts to ensure that the right policy frame works are employed for continued growth and development. Website: www.pasha.org.pk *Si Jeunesse Savait* Si Jeunesse Savait (SJS, “If Young Women Knew” in french) is a feminist group formed in 2001 and based in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It has representation in three provinces of eastern Congo. SJS builds the leadership skills of young women in sexual and reproductive rights, information and communication technologies and entrepreneurship. SJS has 115 members and more than 2000 supporters around Congo. They are involved in advocacy work for a national ICT policy plan for DRC and are also active in research and studies to make sure that gender is at the center of this ICT policy plan. The group also does crosscutting advocacy with other ministries such as education, gender and justice to see a clear plan to train women and girls in ICT and to have a VAW plan that addresses violence in the manner in which it has intersectionalities with ICT. Website: www.mwasi.cd *Taller Permanente de la Mujer association* The association Taller Permanente de la Mujer is a non governmental organization dedicated to advocating the rights of women in Argentina. It began its work in 1988, addressing issues such as health, population, reproductive rights, domestic violence, work and culture. Throughout these 20 years it developed courses, seminars and workshops and published many manuals and materials. In 1995, three of the founding members of the association decided to pursue a project to highlight the fight against discrimination of women and thus was born the Women's Bookstore, one of 62 libraries in the world specializing in books and writings “by” and “for” women. The Women's Bookstore is currently a joint meeting place of many organizations, also maintains a documentation center and a publishing house with the same name. Website: http://libreriademujeres.com.ar/ *Women'sNet* Women’sNet is a feminist organisation launched in March 1998 that works to advance gender equality and justice in South Africa through the use of information and communication technologies. They provide training and facilitate content dissemination and creation that supports women, girls, and women’s and gender organisations and networks to take control of their own content and ICT use. The Women'sNet model rests on three pillars, information/content generation linked to networking and capacity building. Women'sNet undertakes research on ICTs as they relate to women and gender, and as they intersect with content development. Women'sNet is particularly interested in examining the impact that ICTs have on women's lives and their potential to meet development goals (in particular the Millennium Development Goals). Website: www.womensnet.org.za *WOUGNET* Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) is a non-governmental organization that aims to develop the use of information and communication technologies among women as tools to share information and address issues collectively. Initiated in May 2000 in Uganda by several women's organizations, WOUGNET's mission is to promote and support the use of ICT by women and women organizations in Uganda, so that they can take advantage of the opportunities presented by ICT in order to effectively address national and local problems of sustainable development. WOUGNET activities are carried out under three major program areas: Information Sharing and Networking, Technical Support and Gender and ICT Policy Advocacy. To learn more about their ICT policy advocacy work, enter here www.wougnet.org/cms/content/blogsection/13/39/ Website: www.wougnet.org To find out more about key stakeholders in the field of ICTs, visit the Who's Who in Policy's directory: www.genderit.org/whos-who --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- VI. FEMINIST TALKS *Mexico: ACTA - anyone making a fuss in your country?* Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States of America are presently negotiating a trade agreement regarding counterfeiting and the enforcement of intellectual property rights, known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Erika Smith, communications coordinator of APC WNSP, took part in the meeting organized by the Internet Society (ISOC) Mexico to find out how ACTA can affect laws or upcoming bills that attempt to address other aspects of cybercrime, such violence against women facilitated by the internet. www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/mexico-acta-anyone-making-fuss-your-country *Gender divide/gap in Pan-European Dialogue on Internet Governance* Valentina Pellizzer, OneWorld Platform for SouthEast Europe (owpsee) executive directress, participated in this year's EuroDIG – Pan-European Dialogue on Internet Governance, and has several objections to the very visible gender gap in terms of women's participation at the event, and in the IT sector in general. Her commentary was originally written for the Diplo Internet Governance Community Blog. We carry the full text of her commentary. www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/gender-dividegap-pan-european-dialogue-internet-governance To read more Feminist Talk's posts and debates visit: www.genderit.org/feminist-talk ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 7 13:25:20 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing Message-ID: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I just made a new word, in lines of securitization and gravitas. Whether it be differing Civil Societies or Academics or Genderficationists or developing nationalists we are seeing a great trend toward promoting the angles and agendas of groups using Internet Governance as a platform. They are in fact Agendizing the concept. It has been a great while since I saw or heard someone offer -- "this would really be a good method of governing". Generally we are seeing -- "Hey Women need a voice" or "Only poverty stricken citizens need apply" or "ICANN Sucks". People are not here to forward a notion of good international governance of our, net, web, and electronic communications but rather as soldiers of some other war that requires a visit to this arena. Agendizing -- The act of making a cause,,, all about me and not the cause. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 7 14:52:31 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 14:52:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing In-Reply-To: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On the other hand, a "good governance" approach to the internet most easily leads to reinvention of the "wheel" in terms of rights (or the lack thereof, based on the failure to apply general principles of law to the new context of the internet, as has happened in past new vistas of technical change...) Personally, my view is that the amount of BOTH "good governance" cogitating as well as interest-based lobbying (if you will) ought to be naturally minimized by the application of pre-existing rights structures to the internet. If, as someone said months ago, we are merely in the "baby steps" of rights-assertion on the internet, then that is an admission of defeat from the start, since we can rest assured that those asserting property-based rights on the internet will not hesitate to claim them in a robust and strong fashion. Failure to meet those claims with the logical counter-claims for citizen rights creates a power imbalance that virtually guarantees the victory of property claims of right, since by definition a right will always defeat a non-right such as an interest or an equitable argument of any kind. Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. "Good governance" talk can and often does consist of the assertion of rights or of claims based on gender neutrality and other considerations lampooned below. A seemingly "special" interest can, depending on the facts, be equal to the public interest. Thus, the assertion of the "rights of the poor" is not, prima facie, a case of not arguing for good governance. On 8/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > I just made a new word, in lines of securitization and gravitas. Whether it > be > differing Civil Societies or Academics or Genderficationists or developing > nationalists we are seeing a great trend toward promoting the angles and > agendas > of groups using Internet Governance as a platform. They are in fact > Agendizing > the concept. It has been a great while since I saw or heard someone offer > -- > "this would really be a good method of governing". Generally we are seeing > -- > "Hey Women need a voice" or "Only poverty stricken citizens need apply" or > "ICANN Sucks". People are not here to forward a notion of good > international > governance of our, net, web, and electronic communications but rather as > soldiers of some other war that requires a visit to this arena. > > Agendizing -- The act of making a cause,,, all about me and not the cause. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 7 19:44:04 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 16:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing In-Reply-To: References: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <298452.42970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Make no Mistake Dr. Paul, I love a good rally. Sometimes I support stuff just to get the shirt or to meet up with friends. I still own the silkscreen that prints "Save the Gay baby Whales for Jesus". Nothing like a good cause. And never should we turn away because we disagree. And anyone who says that public service announcements that may break cross posting rules are bad -- are full of themselves. Social value is not intellectual it is the manifestation of someone caring. Certainly we should be cognizant of the ever encroaching globalized war against our freedoms of thought and speech and assembly and faith. But we must be mindful that causes celebre should not be run and lead by intellectual wholistic governance folk. They should be run by narrow minded zealots with soleness of purpose and a willingness to sacrifice even common sense for their cause. And likewise Internet Governance should not be swayed or pulled into directions of popularity or fad or singlemindedness. We should consider each opinion and close no doors but we should not set ourselves up in anyway as a platform for a concept that is less than universal in nature. Affirmative discrimination is only one such example. ________________________________ From: Paul Lehto To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Eric Dierker Sent: Sat, August 7, 2010 11:52:31 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing On the other hand, a "good governance" approach to the internet most easily leads to reinvention of the "wheel" in terms of rights (or the lack thereof, based on the failure to apply general principles of law to the new context of the internet, as has happened in past new vistas of technical change...) Personally, my view is that the amount of BOTH "good governance" cogitating as well as interest-based lobbying (if you will) ought to be naturally minimized by the application of pre-existing rights structures to the internet. If, as someone said months ago, we are merely in the "baby steps" of rights-assertion on the internet, then that is an admission of defeat from the start, since we can rest assured that those asserting property-based rights on the internet will not hesitate to claim them in a robust and strong fashion. Failure to meet those claims with the logical counter-claims for citizen rights creates a power imbalance that virtually guarantees the victory of property claims of right, since by definition a right will always defeat a non-right such as an interest or an equitable argument of any kind. Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. "Good governance" talk can and often does consist of the assertion of rights or of claims based on gender neutrality and other considerations lampooned below. A seemingly "special" interest can, depending on the facts, be equal to the public interest. Thus, the assertion of the "rights of the poor" is not, prima facie, a case of not arguing for good governance. On 8/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > I just made a new word, in lines of securitization and gravitas. Whether it > be > differing Civil Societies or Academics or Genderficationists or developing > nationalists we are seeing a great trend toward promoting the angles and > agendas > of groups using Internet Governance as a platform. They are in fact > Agendizing > the concept. It has been a great while since I saw or heard someone offer > -- > "this would really be a good method of governing". Generally we are seeing > -- > "Hey Women need a voice" or "Only poverty stricken citizens need apply" or > "ICANN Sucks". People are not here to forward a notion of good > international > governance of our, net, web, and electronic communications but rather as > soldiers of some other war that requires a visit to this arena. > > Agendizing -- The act of making a cause,,, all about me and not the cause. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 7 23:21:02 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> Message-ID: <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their-own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Aug 7 23:53:25 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:53:25 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > To: , > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > something similar in Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 8 02:11:39 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines for giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the benefits Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? Regards, David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > To: , > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > something similar in Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 8 03:52:48 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Techonomy References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F12@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.cnbc.com/id/38469819/ Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 8 06:32:41 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:32:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Leipziger Teilung References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F12@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F14@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipziger_Teilung ________________________________ Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Gesendet: So 08.08.2010 09:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Techonomy FYI http://www.cnbc.com/id/38469819/ Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 8 06:33:49 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:33:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: Leipziger Teilung References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F12@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F14@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F16@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry this was an error ;-((( w ________________________________ Von: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Gesendet: So 08.08.2010 12:32 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Betreff: Leipziger Teilung http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipziger_Teilung ________________________________ Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Gesendet: So 08.08.2010 09:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Techonomy FYI http://www.cnbc.com/id/38469819/ Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 08:07:15 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 07:37:15 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> David, Could you please bring up the issues you think are most important for discussion? I would like to read views on the most important NN issues right now. Thanks, Ginger On 8/8/2010 1:41 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 8 08:14:04 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <706791.98832.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Ginger, You could start with: - privacy - the WSJ has focussed on this this week - the net neutrality debate that has been in the news this week and additionally how this impacts on Google re FT article and others such as how the US should lead on internet governance - Blackberry issues - US cyber bill re threats to energy infrastructure. And that's just from the news I've collated in the last 3 days. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 10:07:15 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, Could you please bring up the issues you think are most important for discussion? I would like to read views on the most important NN issues right now. Thanks, Ginger On 8/8/2010 1:41 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines >for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 08:19:48 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 07:49:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <706791.98832.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> <706791.98832.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C5EA0E4.9010904@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 08:37:12 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:07:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 12:08:02 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:38:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger Airtel, as the mobile Internet Operator, and a Nationwide 'ISP' for all mobile phones on airtel network is supposed to be neutral to facebook, Ning, LinkedIn or Orkut. When Airtel says, free download for facebook subscribers, it is promoting facebook traffic over Ning or Orkut traffic. It is an indirect way of freelaning traffic, if not fastlaning. That is not NetNeutral. I don't understand why it is difficult to see this as a NN isue. Sivasubramanian M On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between > advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For > instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. > It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started > charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like > a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious > issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive > in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >> lot >> more attention. >> >> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> >> >> I agree - we should discuss. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: parminder >>> Reply-To:, parminder< >>> parminder at itforchange.net> >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>> To:, >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>> something similar in Russia. >>> >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>> >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>> >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>> >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>> >>> >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>> >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>> upon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Aug 8 12:47:41 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:47:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "Absurd"? "trivial"? That is civil discourse? In a civil atmosphere, a post - to be taken seriously - rises above invective-slinging. It posits - instead - evidence and logic that might lead to accepting a contrary view. David On Aug 8, 2010, at 2:11 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after > airlines for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or > the benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are > never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is > common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create > free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/ > or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here > seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a > free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be > attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder > > >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , > > >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook >> free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries >> like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing >> as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a >> part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory >> authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other >> party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is >> concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to >> ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Aug 8 16:03:03 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Message-ID: <882844.74625.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi all, I would also like to share my comments on the subject discussion: We are also witness that Facebook Mobile application shortcut is forcefully sent to our Blackberry from mobile phone network operator on Pakistan, (using Global IT Policy and Service Book for remote configuration). Similarly, Blackberry Marketing staff (of Mobile phone network operator) called each Blackberry user groups and asked to convey this message to users of your group to visit Mobitrack website, and just on browsing the site, icon/shortcut was created in the Blackberry. Even we tried to delete the icon/application shortcut from Blackberry, it was re appeared. However, there was no compulsion on us to use this application but I believe that such applications are also used to probe the client machines as they demand maximum open security access. For example, Google Maps has nothing with your PIMs data (contacts or email) or key logging but this application will not work unless you grant open access to the application through Security Options. Regarding free Internet access (option by AirTel or any other network operator) for the compulsion of browsing the predefined contents such as Youtube or Facebook may be a sponsored scheme of compatible Mobile phones but after all the contents of such portals are already free on cost as a free services for all users. Here, it is necessary and important question that is there any "Net Neutrality" related IT policy is implemented (by the Civil Society, Internet Society or Communication Controlling Authority, Ministry of IT or in Law of Courts) in that country or Not? MAG/GAC are responsible to arrange to implement Internet policies in their Countries. May I ask that are they not answerable to reply IGF, if there is a violation of proposed NN policies are being exercised in their countries (openly) which support discrimination on the Internet Access vs Internet Contents. If no one owns the responsibility, discrimination will continue to be as long as net neutrality rules are not enforced in the Country. By they way, as I know, Chile is the first country who implemented NN policy. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ----------------------------- Urdu Internet Society Urdu Internet Council On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:08 PKT Sivasubramanian M wrote: >Dear Ginger > >Airtel, as the mobile Internet Operator, and a Nationwide 'ISP' for all >mobile phones on airtel network is supposed to be neutral to facebook, Ning, >LinkedIn or Orkut. > >When Airtel says, free download for facebook subscribers, it is promoting >facebook traffic over Ning or Orkut traffic. It is an indirect way of >freelaning traffic, if not fastlaning. > >That is not NetNeutral. I don't understand why it is difficult to see this >as a NN isue. > > >Sivasubramanian M > > > > >On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Ian and Parminder, >> >> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between >> advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For >> instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. >> It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started >> charging for it. >> >> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like >> a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious >> issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. >> >> Where do you see this 'line'? >> >> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive >> in Vilnius. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >>> lot >>> more attention. >>> >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> >>> >>> I agree - we should discuss. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: parminder >>>> Reply-To:, parminder< >>>> parminder at itforchange.net> >>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>> To:, >>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>> something similar in Russia. >>>> >>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>>> >>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>>> >>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>>> >>>> >>>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>>> >>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>> upon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Aug 8 16:09:47 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:09:47 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 20:07:27 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 20:07:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which violate the NN principle. Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing countries) and example of a violation of NN? I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up some of the grey about the issue in my mind. Thanks, Tracy On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > David, > > The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non > traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and > includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social > networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds > - > we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new > search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. > To > me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network > neutrality. . > > I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product > buyndling. > > Ian > > > > > > > From: David Goldstein > > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > > To: , Ian Peter , > parminder > > , > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after > airlines > > for > > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > > benefits > > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > > > Regards, > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Ian Peter > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a > lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: parminder > >> Reply-To: , parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net> > >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > >> To: , > >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >> > >> Hi All > >> > >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > >> something similar in Russia. > >> > >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > >> > >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > >> > >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > >> > >> > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their > >> > - > >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > >> > >> > >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > >> > >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > >> upon. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 8 20:08:14 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 17:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Ian, Well, given that every ISP of any size in Australia is having its own zone for unmetered content, wired and wireless, then this is an argument that is already lost. Whether it's with television stations, Tivo or any of the myriad of unmetered content deals, then it all falls into this category. And the deals aren't about giving different download access speed, unless you exceed your quota. As for bundling or customer loyalty, this is what all these deals are about - it's about the telco or any other business attempting to give themselves an edge in the provision of some forms of content. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein ; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 6:09:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 8 21:40:28 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:40:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: ,<479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, If I may interject a few comments: 1st, at a time when Google is busily cutting deals with Verizon that (according to news reports) amounts to Google's abandonment of net neutrality, it is ironic many here are still trying to define the term. 2nd, Ian when you say 'we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents;' I have 2 further questions: 1) who are 'we'? (since I don't believe many on the list had much say in the actions mentioned) 2) When was it ever easier for new entrants to compete with incumbents than in the Internet age? Lee ________________________________________ From: David Goldstein [goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian, Well, given that every ISP of any size in Australia is having its own zone for unmetered content, wired and wireless, then this is an argument that is already lost. Whether it's with television stations, Tivo or any of the myriad of unmetered content deals, then it all falls into this category. And the deals aren't about giving different download access speed, unless you exceed your quota. As for bundling or customer loyalty, this is what all these deals are about - it's about the telco or any other business attempting to give themselves an edge in the provision of some forms of content. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein ; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 6:09:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 8 22:21:44 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:21:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE54@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, To be specific: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=2&hp and the apocalyptic interpretation: 'the end of the Internet as we know it.' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html (the reality: Internet content providers have been paying to deliver better content (meaning with less jitter etc for better end user experience) to end users...basically forever, as defined in Internet years. Ever hear of Akamai? Or Digital Island? The generic term is content delivery network. But since Akamai does this over their own private (IP) network I guess we are not supposed to think about what's behind that curtain. Lee PS: The news from 2001: Digital Island operates a global private network that provides hosting, content delivery and networking to business customers looking to bypass Internet congestion. Its shares traded as high as $148 in December 1999 before crumbling along with other Internet-related stocks. Shares surged last week after the company announced a deal to host MSN's advertising. ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 9:40 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi, If I may interject a few comments: 1st, at a time when Google is busily cutting deals with Verizon that (according to news reports) amounts to Google's abandonment of net neutrality, it is ironic many here are still trying to define the term. 2nd, Ian when you say 'we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents;' I have 2 further questions: 1) who are 'we'? (since I don't believe many on the list had much say in the actions mentioned) 2) When was it ever easier for new entrants to compete with incumbents than in the Internet age? Lee ________________________________________ From: David Goldstein [goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian, Well, given that every ISP of any size in Australia is having its own zone for unmetered content, wired and wireless, then this is an argument that is already lost. Whether it's with television stations, Tivo or any of the myriad of unmetered content deals, then it all falls into this category. And the deals aren't about giving different download access speed, unless you exceed your quota. As for bundling or customer loyalty, this is what all these deals are about - it's about the telco or any other business attempting to give themselves an edge in the provision of some forms of content. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein ; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 6:09:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Aug 8 23:43:05 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:43:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE54@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE54@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <015B5820-6326-4AFB-8C43-37BCD3D82ABF@post.harvard.edu> A Google - Verizon deal? They both deny it. Then Cringely tells all. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?scp=1&sq=cringely&st=cse ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 02:40:57 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:40:57 +0300 Subject: OTOH.....(was Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles) Message-ID: http://manypossibilities.net/2010/05/facebook-zero-helps-ideas-multiply-at-the-bottom-of-the-pyramid/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:21 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of > data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand > this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in > Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand > these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be > considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing > such cases as above with the telecom regulatory  authourities, and if needed > with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their-own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at > a mutually convenient  arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US > gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as > far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG > is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may > be a question that we need to ponder upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 9 06:51:23 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:21:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Tracey To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not. First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with sufficient purchasing power. Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite formidable. On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in normal times. One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the companies' interests. Not a great world we may be moving towards. Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking up this issue. Parminder On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those > which violate the NN principle. > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other > developing countries) and example of a violation of NN? > > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and > clear up some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > David, > > The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non > traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download > limits and > includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or > social > networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much > lower speeds - > we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for > other new > search engines or social networking sites to compete with the > incumbents. To > me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and > network > neutrality. . > > I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product > buyndling. > > Ian > > > > > > > From: David Goldstein > > > Reply-To: >, David Goldstein > > > > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > > To: >, Ian Peter > >, parminder > > >, > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going > after airlines > > for > > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. > Or the > > benefits > > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that > are never > > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial > issue? > > > > Regards, > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Ian Peter > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; parminder > >; > > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > > > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It > is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to > create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges > and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here > seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of > a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be > attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other > distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: parminder > > >> Reply-To: >, parminder > > > >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > >> To: >, > > > >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >> > >> Hi All > >> > >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing > Facebook free > >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 > months). I > >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > >> something similar in Russia. > >> > >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > >> > >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some > countries like > >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a > thing as > >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > >> > >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being > a part of > >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory > authourities, > >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > >> > >> > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> > - > >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > >> > >> > >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile > based > >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > >> > >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only > other party > >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is > concerned, > >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the > IGF, and > >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to > ponder > >> upon. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 9 09:22:52 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <540340.77854.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Way too complicated. This issue is not a matter of such intricacies. Do we want to regulate, via free services to smaller enterprises, the "net" so that it provides equal platforms for those who cannot afford it? This may sound crude. It may offend capitalists when laid out so clearly. It scares me, because it may just be a way of putting our priorities above another. But in the end, weighing all pros and cons -- I think we must. Implementing policy that allows and encourages growth and new is good. Slowing down the rampant stampede of huge megacorps just makes sense. Normally we do not want to say it so clearly but I believe here we must stand firm, that yes, these guys must contribute to the betterment as a whole and not just to profits. ________________________________ From: parminder To: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter ; David Goldstein ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 3:51:23 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Tracey To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not. First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with sufficient purchasing power. Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite formidable. On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in normal times. One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the companies' interests. Not a great world we may be moving towards. Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking up this issue. Parminder On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > >I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which >violate the NN principle. > > >Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, (available >in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing countries) and >example of a violation of NN? > > >I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up some >of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > >Thanks, > > >Tracy > > >On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >David, >> >>The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >>traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >>includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >>networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - >>we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new >>search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To >>me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >>neutrality. . >> >>I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >>buyndling. >> >>Ian >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: David Goldstein >>> Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> >>> >> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >>> To: , Ian Peter , >parminder >> >>> , >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines >>> for >>> giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >>> benefits >>> Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >>> >>> There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never >>> addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >>> >>> Regards, >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Ian Peter >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >>> ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >>> Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >>> more attention. >>> >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> >>> >>> I agree - we should discuss. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: parminder >>>> Reply-To: , parminder >>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>> To: , >>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>> something similar in Russia. >>>> >>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>>> >>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>>> >>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>>> >>>> >>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> >>- >>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>>> >>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>> upon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Aug 9 16:42:44 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:42:44 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Here is the Google Verizon announcement http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInter net.aspx Much will be said about this, but note that the agreement separates wireless internet as being out of scope for net neutrality (proposing different rules for tethered access). Lee, not only is there a problem with defining what net neutrality is, there now seems to be a parallel problem defining what the internet is! This wired/non wired policy divide is very problematic ­ a nice commercial distinction but very unusual for determining good public policy. From: parminder Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:21:23 +0530 To: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" Cc: , Ian Peter , David Goldstein , Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Tracey To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not. First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with sufficient purchasing power. Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite formidable. On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in normal times. One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the companies' interests. Not a great world we may be moving towards. Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking up this issue. Parminder On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which > violate the NN principle. > > > > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing > countries) and example of a violation of NN? > > > > > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up > some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Tracy > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> David, >> >> The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >> traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >> includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >> networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - >> we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new >> search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To >> me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >> neutrality. . >> >> I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >> buyndling. >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> >> >>> > From: David Goldstein >>> > Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> >>> > >> >>> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >>> > To: , Ian Peter , >>> parminder >> >>> > , >> >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> > >>> > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after >>> airlines >>> > for >>> > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >>> > benefits >>> > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >>> > >>> > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never >>> > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > David >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ---- >>> > From: Ian Peter >>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >>> > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >>> > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> > >>> > Hi Parminder, >>> > >>> > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >>> lot >>> > more attention. >>> > >>> > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> > >>> > >>> > I agree - we should discuss. >>> > >>> > >>> > Ian Peter >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> >> From: parminder >>>> >> Reply-To: , parminder >>>> >>>> >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>> >> To: , >>>> >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi All >>>> >> >>>> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>> >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>> >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>> >> something similar in Russia. >>>> >> >>>> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>>> >> >>>> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>> >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>> >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>> >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>>> >> >>>> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>> >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>> >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>> >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>> >> >>>> >> Parminder >>>> >> >>>> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their >> >> >> - >>>> >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>> >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>>> >> >>>> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>> >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>> >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>> >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>> >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>> >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>> >> upon. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> 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 >>>> >> >>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 19:00:20 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:00:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Parminder ... this certainly helps. I have another question, however ... Several Mobile Telecom operators around the globe offer a "free" WAP Portal bundled into their equipment or service offerings. Currently these WAP portals offer subscribers (both post-paid and pre-paid) a myriad of free and commercial "junk" such as ringtones, wallpapers, screensavers etc. I would even go so far as to say that concepts such as the iPhone App Store, Blackberry App World, and even Ovi may be drifting on dangerous ground. Given the explanation provided below, does this (now) relatively common and, in some cases hugely popular, (see iPhone App Store) practice also violate the concept of NN? And if so ... and this is a damned rhetorical question, I am certain ... what measures can a country/telecom regulator take to curtail this practice (which seems like a very likely starting point for the scenario to which you refer below) Rgds, Tracy On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:51 AM, parminder wrote: > Tracey > > To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario > towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we > are not. > > First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a > couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom > carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals > with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net > neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary > consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he > wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till > there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so > abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not > appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those > which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few > Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The > 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would > become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', > and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with > sufficient purchasing power. > > Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything > wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market > power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse > off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' > quite formidable. > > On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be > paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever > more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer > in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as > well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as > fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, > and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity > comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. > > This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the > preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like > the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that > counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of > small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some > amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream > 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for > political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in > normal times. > > One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just > give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as > the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free > 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not > be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that > you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social > responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards > serving the companies' interests. > > Not a great world we may be moving towards. > > Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in > picking up this issue. > > Parminder > > On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those > which violate the NN principle. > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing > countries) and example of a violation of NN? > > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear > up some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> David, >> >> The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >> traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >> includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >> networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds >> - >> we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other >> new >> search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. >> To >> me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >> neutrality. . >> >> I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >> buyndling. >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> >> >> > From: David Goldstein >> > Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> > >> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >> > To: , Ian Peter , >> parminder >> > , >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after >> airlines >> > for >> > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >> > benefits >> > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >> > >> > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are >> never >> > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >> > >> > Regards, >> > David >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Ian Peter >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >> > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > Hi Parminder, >> > >> > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is >> common >> > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >> lot >> > more attention. >> > >> > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> > >> > >> > I agree - we should discuss. >> > >> > >> > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> From: parminder >> >> Reply-To: , parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net> >> >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> >> To: , > > >> >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> >> >> Hi All >> >> >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook >> free >> >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> >> something similar in Russia. >> >> >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part >> of >> >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> >> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their >> >> >> - >> >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> >> upon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 20:46:57 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:46:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] goodbye net neutrality Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: cracin-canada-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:cracin-canada-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:32 PM To: CRACIN Canada discussion Subject: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] goodbye net neutrality FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 9, 2010 4:41 PM CONTACT: Free Press [1] Liz Rose, Communications Director, 202-265-1490 x 32 Jenn Ettinger, Media Coordinator, 202-265-1490 x35 Google-Verizon Pact Worse than Feared WASHINGTON - August 9 - In response to Google and Verizon's "policy framework" unveiled today, MoveOn.Org Civic Action, Credo Action, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, ColorofChange.org and Free Press, all members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, issued the following joint statement: "The Google-Verizon pact isn't just as bad as we feared - it's much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled. "They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they'll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks. "It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little guy stranded on a winding dirt road. "Worse still, this pact would turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing complaints and unable to make rules of its own. "This is not real Net Neutrality. And this pact would harm the millions of Americans who have pleaded with our leaders in Washington to defend the free and open Internet. President Obama, Congress and the FCC should reject this deal, restore the authority of the agency that's supposed to protect Internet users, and safeguard Net Neutrality once and for all." ### Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Learn more at www.freepress.net [2] Free Press Links: Homepage [1] Free Press (Press Center) [3] Free Press (Action Center) [4] _____ Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/08/09-5 -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 00:29:29 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:29:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All, Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement". Is this the best they could get? @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one never knows! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 10 06:48:43 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:18:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 09:59 AM, McTim wrote: > All, > > Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal > > It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. > > Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html > > All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN > practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. > McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It is not about what already happened surreptitiously and now may be more open, but what is your views on what is happening, and its threat or not to the Internet you want to advocate for. Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that you support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN you support, how important you think it is and what is it that you are ready to do to push for it. > My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point > by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the > wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency > requirement". Is this the best they could get? > I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a vis its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest. And whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'. > @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is > a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most > regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits > equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one > never knows! > Again, dismissively mentioning 'what is unlikely to happen' may not the best way to go forward for an advocacy group at this kind of a juncture, which has taken upon itself to promote progressive Internet policies and 'strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all' (from the charter). Also, why should be rather more sanguine that our efforts can dismantle the authoritarian regimes of the world but are unlikely to have any effect on continued corporatist domination of the Internet and the world. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 08:42:46 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:12:46 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles (transparency) In-Reply-To: <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C614946.5050000@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Aug 10 09:19:56 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:19:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> > All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN > practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. > > My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point > by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the > wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency > requirement". Is this the best they could get? Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and other content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 09:33:49 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:33:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4C6151FC.3010401 at wzb.eu>, at 14:19:56 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Jeanette Hofmann writes > Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. The 0.facebook deal mentioned on this list earlier in the week seems to predate it. But like others, I'm puzzled why paying to get your content delivered more efficiently is such a surprise - Akamai have offered this for a decade, and it's the reason why pure content providers are members of out-of-state[1] IXPs, which they have achieved despite, in the distant past, some hard-liners saying the benefits should be restricted to reseller connectivity ISPs (and not direct to end sites). [1] State meaning their home country. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dmiloshevic at afilias.info Tue Aug 10 09:52:49 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:52:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >> >> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >> requirement". Is this the best they could get? > > Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and > other content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? > Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. > Perhaps also an offer Google could not refuse? Desiree -- > jeanette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Aug 10 09:55:40 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:55:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> Message-ID: <4C615A5C.3090000@wzb.eu> On 10.08.2010 14:52, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: > > On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >>> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >>> >>> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >>> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >>> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >>> requirement". Is this the best they could get? >> >> Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and other >> content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? Perhaps >> Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. >> > > Perhaps also an offer Google could not refuse? You mean, in terms of McTim's question, this _is_ the best deal they could get? jeanette > > Desiree > -- > >> jeanette >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dmiloshevic at afilias.info Tue Aug 10 10:11:45 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:11:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C615A5C.3090000@wzb.eu> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> <4C615A5C.3090000@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:55, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > On 10.08.2010 14:52, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: >> >> On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>>> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been >>>> NN >>>> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >>>> >>>> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this >>>> point >>>> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >>>> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >>>> requirement". Is this the best they could get? >>> >>> Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and >>> other >>> content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? Perhaps >>> Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. >>> >> >> Perhaps also an offer Google could not refuse? > > You mean, in terms of McTim's question, this _is_ the best deal they > could get? > While nobody knows exact terms of the deal, I was simply being more sceptical, meaning that they got the deal nobody else could get. Desiree -- More links and blogs: http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInternet.aspx http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality http://chrismarsden.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-verizon-wedding-cake-is-made-of.html > jeanette >> >> Desiree >> -- >> >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Aug 10 11:00:48 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:00:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:29 AM, McTim wrote: > All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN > practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. Au contraire, the 'common carriage' regimes - those of us old enough (for which, read 'ancient') will remember - were strict and pointed. A telco - a 'carrier' - simply did not mess with the message being transmitted. This was vital to the democratic role of these 'common carrier networks.' Such common carrier rules intended, among others, to prevent intervention by powerful forces, such as governments or aggregated corporate power, to block or distort free flow of information in a polity. Does any of this ring true re global policy struggles alive to this day ... ? These traditions however hark back long decades. The Computer I, II and III inquiries in the US (beginning from 1966 with the third inquiry finally launched in 1985) were all about computers not being allowed to mess with messages as they flowed across the net. Of course in the end, packet switching made that an 'interesting' discussion ... Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of information was hallowed. Of course today, price has been added as a variable, along with arguments for 'free markets.' The tradition and framework from which NN grows, however, is long and strong. David ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 11:59:50 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:59:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 11:00:48 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, David Allen writes >Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US >where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of >information was hallowed. On the other hand, even US-based ISPs have acknowledged that having spammers as customers is damaging to their reputation, and it would be undersirable to be forced to carry the traffic. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 10 12:08:08 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:38:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4C617968.4040509@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 07:03 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4C6151FC.3010401 at wzb.eu>, at 14:19:56 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, > Jeanette Hofmann writes > >> Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. > > The 0.facebook deal mentioned on this list earlier in the week seems > to predate it. But like others, I'm puzzled why paying to get your > content delivered more efficiently is such a surprise - Akamai have > offered this for a decade, and it's the reason why pure content > providers are members of out-of-state[1] IXPs, which they have > achieved despite, in the distant past, some hard-liners saying the > benefits should be restricted to reseller connectivity ISPs (and not > direct to end sites). > > [1] State meaning their home country. Roland, You are basically saying that you are completely puzzled about what could possibly be bothering all those who have been writing articles and blogs on this issue in the last two days. You think they simple have no point at all, whether you agree with them or not, and are simply confused? Parminder ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 10 12:19:20 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:49:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C617C08.5030004@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 09:29 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 11:00:48 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, David Allen > writes >> Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US >> where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of >> information was hallowed. > > On the other hand, even US-based ISPs have acknowledged that having > spammers as customers is damaging to their reputation, and it would be > undersirable to be forced to carry the traffic. Roland You are entitled to your views, but let us not confuse the issues under discussions. No serious proponent of network neutrality speaks against specific measures like spam control and taking steps against possible harms to the network. I am sure you know what are the real issues of contestation here. Why dont we do a fair debate on these real issues. Parminder ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 16:20:50 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:20:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C617C08.5030004@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C617C08.5030004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4C617C08.5030004 at itforchange.net>, at 21:49:20 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, parminder writes >>> Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US >>>where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of >>>information was hallowed. >> >> On the other hand, even US-based ISPs have acknowledged that having >>spammers as customers is damaging to their reputation, and it would be >>undersirable to be forced to carry the traffic. > >Roland > >You are entitled to your views, but let us not confuse the issues under >discussions. No serious proponent of network neutrality speaks against >specific measures like spam control and taking steps against possible >harms to the network. I am sure you know what are the real issues of >contestation here. Why dont we do a fair debate on these real issues. As I understand, if the concept of "Common Carrier" was applied literally would not allow ISPs to deny Spammers access. But if anyone has an alternate view I'm very open to discussing it. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 16:45:26 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:45:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C617968.4040509@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> <4C617968.4040509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4C617968.4040509 at itforchange.net>, at 21:38:08 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, parminder writes >>> Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. >> >> The 0.facebook deal mentioned on this list earlier in the week seems >>to predate it. But like others, I'm puzzled why paying to get your >>content delivered more efficiently is such a surprise - Akamai have >>offered this for a decade, and it's the reason why pure content >>providers are members of out-of-state[1] IXPs, which they have >>achieved despite, in the distant past, some hard-liners saying the >>benefits should be restricted to reseller connectivity ISPs (and not >>direct to end sites). >> >> [1] State meaning their home country. > >Roland, You are basically saying that you are completely puzzled about >what could possibly be bothering all those who have been writing >articles and blogs on this issue in the last two days. You think they >simple have no point at all, whether you agree with them or not, and >are simply confused? I think many of them are in denial that ISPs in some markets have been treating traffic differently for a very long time, but mainly they don't seem to appreciate the multifarious ways that content delivery is done by shortcuts (or via the back door, ie private networks most of the way) and hasn't been predominantly end-to-end on the public Internet for ten years. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 10 19:06:52 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:06:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 21:50:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:50:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM, parminder wrote: > > >> >> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >> > > McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It is > not about what already happened surreptitiously nothing surreptitious about it, QoS came from the telco world. and now may be more open, > but what is your views on what is happening It's a political proposal, one that I don't see being enacted into law anytime soon (and then only in the USA of course). , and its threat or not to the > Internet you want to advocate for. I pretty much have the Internet I want.....I just want more folk to have it, really. Unfortunately, most of the folk who don't have it will be getting it on their mobile, which is not really a compelling experience. Despite Common Carrier obligations, which David rightly refers to, Telcos run walled garden networks, charge by the trick and want to charge for every bit that crosses their network. It's bell-heads vs net-heads, and for the record, I'm a net-head. > > Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that you > support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN you > support, This one works for me: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html >how important you think it is On a scale of 1 to 10? Maybe about a 4. >and what is it that you are ready to > do to push for it. I like JL's view at : http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_google_and_verizon_offer_a_gift_to_spammers/ "It's certainly true that in most parts of the country, there's only one or two viable broadband ISPs, the phone company and the cable company, and they can't be trusted to run the network the way their users want. But the right way to address the excessive market power isn't to regulate the ISPs, it's for the FCC to put the rules back the way they were in the early 1990s, so telcos and, ideally, cable companies have to provide the underlying connections to any ISP on the same terms, so we have enough competing ISPs that if you don't like one, you can just switch to another. " for the most part however, I am happy to continue to do capacity building around how Internetworking works, and make sure that folk understand that openness is the key to the success of the Internet so far. >> >> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >> requirement".   Is this the best they could get? >> > > I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a vis > its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest. And > whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'. That would probably be something along the lines of Bob Frankston's thinking, see http://frankston.com/public/?n=as and http://frankston.com/public/?name=IntroAmbient I don't know how we get there however. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 10 21:38:08 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:38:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A64@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> " All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are." I have always wondered how could so many smart persons have missed this for so long? Carlton -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Cc: parminder; Ian Peter; David Goldstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles All, Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement". Is this the best they could get? @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one never knows! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Aug 10 22:41:45 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:41:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A64@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> ,<39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A64@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE6A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Really all Google & Verizon have done is figured out how to get lots of pr for their joint lobbying campaign to Congress, to shape an 'open Internet' bill which is years away from passage. The FCC is boxed in by the courts, and now deserted by Google which states in black and white that it wants to have no regulatory obligations to FCC whatsoever, ever, in that future bill. And Verizon is conceding Internet access providers should do a better job disclosing their terms and conditions. So users are thrown 1 significant bone in greater emphasis on transparency. And oh yeah by releasing this joint statement Google and Verizon sucked the air out of the broader discussions between FCC and industry and other players, now abandoned by FCC. The Verizon and Google framework proposal stands, FCC is frozen, and midterm elections are coming soon. So we're done with telecoms/NN reform for 2010, see you again in 2011. Those Google (and Verizon) folks are clever indeed! Lee ________________________________________ From: SAMUELS,Carlton A [carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Cc: parminder; Ian Peter; David Goldstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles " All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are." I have always wondered how could so many smart persons have missed this for so long? Carlton -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Cc: parminder; Ian Peter; David Goldstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles All, Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement". Is this the best they could get? @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one never knows! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 10 22:57:14 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> And on the subject of walled gardens there is Apple's walled garden whose walls are being built higher and higher by the day... and because its Apple, almost nobody apart from a couple of US regulatory agencies seem to care... probably because Apple's PR is so good, people think because it's Apple, it must be good for you! ----- Original Message ---- From: McTim To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" ; Ian Peter ; David Goldstein ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Wed, 11 August, 2010 11:50:24 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM, parminder wrote: > > >> >> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >> > > McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It is > not about what already happened surreptitiously nothing surreptitious about it, QoS came from the telco world. and now may be more open, > but what is your views on what is happening It's a political proposal, one that I don't see being enacted into law anytime soon (and then only in the USA of course). , and its threat or not to the > Internet you want to advocate for. I pretty much have the Internet I want.....I just want more folk to have it, really. Unfortunately, most of the folk who don't have it will be getting it on their mobile, which is not really a compelling experience. Despite Common Carrier obligations, which David rightly refers to, Telcos run walled garden networks, charge by the trick and want to charge for every bit that crosses their network. It's bell-heads vs net-heads, and for the record, I'm a net-head. > > Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that you > support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN you > support, This one works for me: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html >how important you think it is On a scale of 1 to 10? Maybe about a 4. >and what is it that you are ready to > do to push for it. I like JL's view at : http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_google_and_verizon_offer_a_gift_to_spammers/ "It's certainly true that in most parts of the country, there's only one or two viable broadband ISPs, the phone company and the cable company, and they can't be trusted to run the network the way their users want. But the right way to address the excessive market power isn't to regulate the ISPs, it's for the FCC to put the rules back the way they were in the early 1990s, so telcos and, ideally, cable companies have to provide the underlying connections to any ISP on the same terms, so we have enough competing ISPs that if you don't like one, you can just switch to another. " for the most part however, I am happy to continue to do capacity building around how Internetworking works, and make sure that folk understand that openness is the key to the success of the Internet so far. >> >> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >> requirement". Is this the best they could get? >> > > I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a vis > its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest. And > whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'. That would probably be something along the lines of Bob Frankston's thinking, see http://frankston.com/public/?n=as and http://frankston.com/public/?name=IntroAmbient I don't know how we get there however. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 23:19:03 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:19:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:57 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > And on the subject of walled gardens there is Apple's walled garden whose walls > are being built higher and higher by the day... and because its Apple, almost > nobody apart from a couple of US regulatory agencies seem to care... probably > because Apple's PR is so good, people think because it's Apple, it must be good > for you! I care, and my reaction? I don't use Apple gear. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 11 00:43:40 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] What Matters in Net Neutrality by Jonathan Zittrain Message-ID: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi all, This article by Jonathan Zittrain raises some issues for and against net neutrality. Cheers David What Matters in Net Neutrality by Jonathan Zittrain It's hard to know what to make of the Google/Verizon deal since until earlier today both companies have denied that there is one. And it's hard to argue about net neutrality because it means so many different things to different people. I've got lots of reading to do to catch up on the newly released set of principles from the companies, but in the meantime here are a few thoughts on the topic. The core question is this: when Internet Service Providers turn out to have captive audiences of subscribers—either because their customers have few if any alternatives for broadband, or because switching is complicated and cumbersome, or because ISP practices are obscure and thus hard for customers to adapt to—how far should they be allowed to leverage that captivity? http://futureoftheinternet.org/what-matters-in-net-neutrality --------- David Goldstein email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ http://goldsteinreport.com/ phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 09:09:16 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:39:16 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C62A0FC.2070000@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 11 09:48:47 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:18:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "*That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away."* How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > productive in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >> more attention. >> >> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> >> >> I agree - we should discuss. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: parminder >>> Reply-To:, parminder >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>> To:, >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>> something similar in Russia. >>> >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>> >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>> >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>> >>> >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>> >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>> upon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 11:44:21 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:14:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C62C555.1080201@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 12:33:31 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:33:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder and everyone, I am very conscious of the fact that I am NOT a techie, so please forgive me if I am stating the obvious/making a fool of myself or both. As far as I am concerned "network neutrality" speaks to the management of the hardware, software and traffic of the internet to preserve interoperability and open equitable access > ... a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to > probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve > the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who > cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless > greatly affected by these developments. > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it > is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public > media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps > without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the > Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free > Internet based service wont go anywhere. > I was prodded into replying by what Parminder has to say quoted above. This aspect of the Internet is deeply important to me. For some time I have been alarmed at and thinking about a predatory behaviour online which I describe to myself as "webherding". Subsequently I discovered that other people call the same phenomenon "social engineering" which sounds almost respectable :-) Herding behaviour is something that man has learned to make use of to his benefit - but at the same time sharks do it, wolves do it, very much to the detriment of that which is herded. When herded, creatures lose their individuality, and the possibility of innovation, the possibility of choice. A world is created which is the diametric opposite of the type of world the Internet is sold to us as being. Somehow our perception of the world has been shifted to a focus where business ethics have become a sort of norm - if it is good business then it is also generally good and should not be questioned. Deirdre > > Parminder > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com ] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > productive in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > To: , > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > something similar in Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 11 16:00:02 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:00:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Question References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? Thanks wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Wed Aug 11 16:08:02 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:08:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Question In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C630322.7000905@nic.br> Anriette Esterhuysen ============================================ On 11/8/2010 17:00, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? > > Thanks > > wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Aug 11 16:56:31 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:56:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7118146EDCCE46F19DC4D5FBA4CDA9F9@MTBJ> anriette at apc.org ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d'Ingénieurs Tél : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Envoyé : mercredi 11 août 2010 21:00 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] Question Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? Thanks wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Aug 11 16:57:22 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:57:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0F9F5BBE7E7844CD8903DAA8A5DC0220@MTBJ> anriette at apc.org ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Envoyé : mercredi 11 août 2010 21:00 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] Question Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? Thanks wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 20:40:25 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:10:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Tracy, On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those > which violate the NN principle. > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing > countries) and example of a violation of NN? > I see this as an issue that is even larger than that of the propriety of the commercial positions of Google and Verizon. This is an issue that makes it obvious that mobile (phone) Internet is far different from conventional Internet. It shows that certain values that are inherent in 'conventional' Internet are bound to be missing in mobile Internet 1. 'Conventional' Internet does not *definitely* identify the end-user or the terminal accessing the Internet. The Network provided Internet access to the end-user without requirements such as precise identification of user and identification of the terminal at the user's end (machine number or processor number or a set of names and numbers that precisely identified the user's terminal. This is a factor that significantly contributed to the practice of non-discrimination, in the sense that it was difficult to discriminate without absolute certainty of the person at the user's end. That changes totally and completely in mobile Internet. The Phone Company which doubles as the ISP has completely knowledge of the user's terminal, which is identified by the IMEI number, the connection is identified by the sim number and the phone number. An IMEI number is required to make the 'terminal' eligible for connectivity, it identifies the 'terminal' in no uncertain terms and the sim card and number is linked to the user which identifies the user. The user at the end is highly visible to the network operator, so it becomes perfectly possible for the network operator to discriminate between users, if the operator chooses to. 2. Conventional Internet does not seek to know what is going through the pipelines, but mobile Internet knows with absolute certainty. In the 0.facebook issue, the fundamental issue is that the mobile Internet Services provider who is the phone company KNOWS (worse, monitors) that the user is accessing facebook. That is not supposed to be known, not supposed to be noticed. In the true principles of Internet, the mobile ISP is supposed to be 'stupid' and is not supposed to know what is going through the connection - whether it is voice or data, let alone whether it is facebook or LinkedIn. But the phone company knows everything. So it becomes possible to free-lane or fast-lane traffic. The user is in a glass house while accessing Internet from a mobile phone. Sivasubramanian M > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up > some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> David, >> >> The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >> traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >> includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >> networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds >> - >> we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other >> new >> search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. >> To >> me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >> neutrality. . >> >> I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >> buyndling. >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> >> >> > From: David Goldstein >> > Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> > >> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >> > To: , Ian Peter , >> parminder >> > , >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after >> airlines >> > for >> > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >> > benefits >> > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >> > >> > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are >> never >> > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >> > >> > Regards, >> > David >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Ian Peter >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >> > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > Hi Parminder, >> > >> > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is >> common >> > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >> lot >> > more attention. >> > >> > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> > >> > >> > I agree - we should discuss. >> > >> > >> > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> From: parminder >> >> Reply-To: , parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net> >> >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> >> To: , > > >> >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> >> >> Hi All >> >> >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook >> free >> >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> >> something similar in Russia. >> >> >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part >> of >> >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> >> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their >> >> >> - >> >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> >> upon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Thu Aug 12 14:21:09 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:21:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Parminder: I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly misread my misgivings. To report what is - and recognize the nature of things - can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green's Order that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in very business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. We - civil society - are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said "I don't want to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you'll find me. Ginger's response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] My position is that this 'knowing' is what fuels the big picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency trumps. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To:, parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To:, Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Aug 13 06:35:02 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:35:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] Fw: [i-network] East African Internet Governance Forum-updates In-Reply-To: <478516.4426.qm@web57801.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <478516.4426.qm@web57801.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Walubengo J Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [kictanet] Fw: [i-network] East African Internet Governance Forum-updates To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions below the updates from the East African Internet Governance Forum in Uganda. walu. Alice: any major\key decisions coming out of the Kampala meeting? --- On Wed, 8/11/10, I-Network Secretariat Eunice Namirembe wrote: From: I-Network Secretariat Eunice Namirembe Subject: [i-network] East African Internet Governance Forum To: "I-Network Uganda" Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 6:38 PM Dear Members, Like most of you may know already, The East African Internet Governance Forum is taking place now. You are invited to follow proceedings on Twitter @EA_IGF, read updates on the blog http://www.eaigf-uganda.blogspot.com/ or follow participants updates on facebook when you search East African Internet Governance Forum and be part of the event. You can also access day one presentations on the EAIGF website using this link http://www.eaigf.or.ke/eaigf/eaigf/2010-eaigf-presentation.html. Kind regards Eunice ________________________ Visit the I-Network website - www.i-network.or.ug Follow I-Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/inetwork The I-Network Dgroup is a platform for ICT Knowledge Sharing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit [web site]( http://d2.dgroups.org/iicd/i-network/ ) Click [here]( mailto:leave.i-network at dgroups.org ) to unsubscribe The email is intended only for the recipients. The owners of the Dgroups cannot be held responsible for the contents of the email message. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 13 09:33:29 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:03:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Hi All The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be development agenda.) Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. As Carlton notes in his email Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems built to give political respectability to private interests. Parminder On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > misread my misgivings. To report what is -- and recognize the nature > of things -- can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they > see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to > recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green's Order that broke up Ma Bell. > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. > > We -- civil society -- are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. > Grouch Marx was alleged to have said "I don't want to belong to any > club that will have me as a member". The sentiment expressed has a > larger embrace and this is where you'll find me. Ginger's response to > Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple > products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public > disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of > its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was > fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] > > My position is that this 'knowing' is what fuels the big picture > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > trumps. > > Carlton > > *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Carlton > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > subsequent email "*That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away."* > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > of influencing it? > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and > browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling > would do in the network or Internet space. > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses > of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do > anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily > new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be > more bothered about the structural implications of vertical > integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for > a more egalitarian world. > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and > therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, > is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs > to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that > serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of > those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are > nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, > it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is > a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising > citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and > essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, > discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go > anywhere. > > Parminder > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > productive in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To: , parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To: , > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 10:10:02 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:40:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C65523A.1070904@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 10:28:20 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:28:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1281709700.1779.1531.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Parminder and all I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: Governments: - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. Regulators: - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access - some in the pocket of operators - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure Businesses - large mobile: - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: - many would like to get into content - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. Anriette > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > for me. > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > trumps. > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > developments. > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 10:48:12 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:48:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights event at IGF Message-ID: <1281710892.1779.1613.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear IGC members Please pass this invitation on, and you are of course all invited. Best Anriette ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leading up to the 2010 IGF, The Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Global Partners, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles are hosting, on 13 September 2010 in Vilnius, an event on: "Internet governance and human rights: strategies and collaboration for empowerment" Internet governance has significant impact on human rights. This is reflected by the inclusion of human rights considerations in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda, which gave the IGF its mandate. However, human rights discussions have not featured prominently at the IGF. What discussions there have been tended to focus on civil and political rights without also sufficiently considering how the internet relates to cultural, social and economic rights. The indivisibility of rights has not received the attention it requires. The Internet governance and human rights communities work in different spaces and rarely have the opportunity to interact. The presence of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank la Rue at the 2009 IGF and again at the 2010 IGF shows that this is beginning to change. The 2010 IGF presents a valuable opportunity to place human rights more firmly on the Internet governance map and to identify opportunities for collaboration with mainstream human rights communities. With an increasing emphasis on the development agenda in the IGF it is also a good opportunity to look at the links between human rights, development and the Internet. Join the conversation with human rights, internet governance and development activists as we review pressing IG issues such as access, diversity, equality, freedom, openness and development with a view to strengthening the human rights agenda at the IGF. Sept 13, 2010 2-5pm Main IGF venue, Vilnius Room to be confirmed More concretely, we hope to: * continue building effective collaborations promoting human rights in Internet governance, and, * identify appropriate spaces for intervention in the 2010 IGF. For more information, or to confirm your participation, please contact: Chad Lubelsky (chad at apc.org) -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 11:06:54 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:06:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights event at IGF In-Reply-To: <1281710892.1779.1613.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <1281710892.1779.1613.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <1281712014.1779.1717.camel@anriette-laptop> Our apology to the Giganet people. We realise we will clash with part of your event. There was just no other option - Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:48 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear IGC members > > Please pass this invitation on, and you are of course all invited. > > Best > > Anriette > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Leading up to the 2010 IGF, The Association for Progressive > Communications (APC), Global Partners, the Centre for Internet and > Society (CIS) and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and > Principles are hosting, on 13 September 2010 in Vilnius, an event on: > > "Internet governance and human rights: strategies and collaboration for > empowerment" > > Internet governance has significant impact on human rights. This is > reflected by the inclusion of human rights considerations in the Geneva > Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda, which gave the IGF its > mandate. However, human rights discussions have not featured prominently > at the IGF. What discussions there have been tended to focus on civil > and political rights without also sufficiently considering how the > internet relates to cultural, social and economic rights. The > indivisibility of rights has not received the attention it requires. > > The Internet governance and human rights communities work in > different spaces and rarely have the opportunity to interact. The > presence of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank la > Rue at the 2009 IGF and again at the 2010 IGF shows that this is > beginning to change. The 2010 IGF presents a valuable opportunity to > place human rights more firmly on the Internet governance map and to > identify opportunities for collaboration with mainstream human rights > communities. > > With an increasing emphasis on the development agenda in the IGF it > is also a good opportunity to look at the links between human > rights, development and the Internet. > > Join the conversation with human rights, internet governance > and development activists as we review pressing IG issues such as > access, diversity, equality, freedom, openness and development with a > view to strengthening the human rights agenda at the IGF. > > Sept 13, 2010 > 2-5pm > Main IGF venue, Vilnius > Room to be confirmed > > More concretely, we hope to: > > * continue building effective collaborations promoting human > rights in Internet governance, and, > * identify appropriate spaces for intervention in the 2010 IGF. > > For more information, or to confirm your participation, please contact: > Chad Lubelsky (chad at apc.org) -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 12:07:24 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:07:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <1281709700.1779.1531.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder and all I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: Governments: - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. Regulators: - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access - some in the pocket of operators - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure Businesses - large mobile: - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: - many would like to get into content - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. Anriette > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > for me. > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > trumps. > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > developments. > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these > > codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Aug 13 12:18:19 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:18:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE89@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I don't often cross-post, but this email below from Richard Shockey on Farber's list may be a helpful small step towards clarifying what different folks are saying - and aligning that with the tech reality of Internet operations. Bottom line for me remains we are early in the game of defining public policy for all-IP nets. For US the Google-Verizon thing is just a clever shot at setting the agenda for when those discussions amp up, in a year or 2. Cuz right now we're just talking and nothing imminent is happening. Because...well see below. Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 4:57 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Re: VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Begin forwarded message: From: "Waz, Joe" > Date: August 12, 2010 9:25:36 PM EDT To: >, >, > Subject: Re: [IP] VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Richard's right - today, most cable voice service is IP-based - that's how Comcast entered the voice business ________________________________ From: George Ou > To: dave at farber.net >; richard at shockey.us >; Waz, Joe Sent: Thu Aug 12 20:42:52 2010 Subject: RE: [IP] VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Richard, This was a superbly stated comment and I enjoyed reading it. I just have one minor issue which is your comment that cable telephony runs on IP. I could be wrong, but I don’t think cable telephony uses IP. Joe? George From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:35 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Begin forwarded message: From: "Richard Shockey" > Date: August 11, 2010 5:48:31 PM EDT To: > Subject: RE: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement For IP please .. With all due respect to Link Hoewing and Richard Whitt of Google, who probably crafted this statement, it has clearly created more confusion and FUD that before it was issued. Its regrettable. What is needed here is some clarity on what the various actors want to achieve and how the public interest is to be served. That said I’m personally much more sympathetic to the general principal of packet discrimination in IP networks that one might imagine. Part of the problem in the discussion of Net Neutrality is the lack of any real Internet Engineering input. This is a frustration that I know our list nanny and Gerry Faulhaber have felt for some time ..they are not alone. This is also a problem in the FCC and certainly among the DuPont Circle “public interest” groups such as FP and PK. No one ask guys like me what people are really trying to do with the Internet. As someone who has spent the last 15 years as a working participant in the Internet Engineering Task Force ( which defines the protocols that ARE the Internet ) and a chair of several of its working groups let me point out a number of salient facts. First .. packet discrimination or application specific packet discrimination of IP networks is a integral part of the Internet Protocol suite and has been since nearly its inception. First was Differentiated Services or difserv RFC 2474 RFC 2475 etal or wikipedia for details. Recently the IETF and our cousins at the ITU has spent huge amounts of brain power defining the architecture of MPLS or Multi Protocol Label Switching for IP which is rapidly ( along with Ethernet) becoming the core of global carrier networks. Look it up. This is a good thing. IP has won now us poor engineering grunts have to make it work. Yes all IP datagrams are created equal but some packets MUST be made more equal than others. Brett Glass noted this earlier but the obvious application is VoIP. In case you had not heard classic Class 5 analog POTS is dying and I’m deeply sympathetic to those operators with Nortel DMS 250 and 500 switches who are trying to figure out what to do in a era of constrained operator CAPEX. Oh yes ..engineers at VZ and T and others live in mortal fear of the EOL letter ( End of Life) for the AL 5ESS switches as well. FCC’s own stats indicate that 18 percent of PSTN traffic is probably now running on IP networks, but that was based on 2008 data. IMHO its probably more than 35% now and once T and VZ roll out their LTE/ IMS networks that crosses the 50% mark. Its nearly 100% among Cable Operators. Yes its SIP .. RFC 3761. The difference is that this is not Vonage or Skype it’s a managed IP service. With respect, Chairman Seidenberg needs a better PR advisor. His comment on that he wants to offer 3D Metropolitan opera services was nearly as ridiculous as the EBIDA envy expressed by Ed (my pipes) Whitacre about Google, which started this whole mess in the first place. I would have had much more respect for him if he actually said, “Look lots of folks want to pay us good money to differentiate their IP traffic .. like Telepresence, public safety, medical monitoring. We need the technical capability as well as the regulatory clarity to offer those services” “ Oh BTW I need to defend my 6% dividend thank you very much.” That I would understand. Inherent in the Google VZ statement is a definition of consumer broadband Internet access that says that non discrimination in landline environments means that consumer broadband internet access is a “best efforts service” and no more. Well OK say so. Frankly that is not the reality of the network as it exists, nor do I believe that is what consumers or businesses actually want. I want my voice and point to point video transmissions to be “managed”. I’m happy to pay for that. Point to Point video is, perhaps the last real application the carriers can monetize if they would wake up to the opportunity. Just look at what Apple has done and will do with FaceTime. Wireless, I understand is different. That is the key here. But defining technically or in policy what is the “consumer broadband internet access service” is about as easy as defining what “reasonable network management” or a “telecommunications vs information service”. I don’t envy them but I do wish them well. That said .. I am a fan of the only reasonable way to guarantee universal broadband access to all Americans ..that is TURN OFF ANALOG POTS. That does not say kill off the PSTN .. that is a appropriate regulatory construct especially with the core voice service using E.164 addressing. It’s just there is one network now and its IP. We had a successful transition with analog to digital television there is no reason we could not do this for IP at the access side. IP now IP everywhere. Running parallel networks, analog POTS/SS7 and IP access is not a good thing from the network architecture and OPEX side. The PSTN as a mandated service using E.164 numbers that MUST remain, but that is a “managed service” with clear packet discrimination. IMHO the real all IP network from a CAPEX/ OPEX perspective it would actually make financial sense for our Copperhead friends ( I no longer like calling them Bellheads) over the long term. ATT has argued that case at the FCC. http://gigaom.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/da-09-2517a11.pdf http://blog.quintarelli.it/files/att.pdf From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 2:26 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement Begin forwarded message: From: "Hoewing, C. L." > Date: August 10, 2010 4:50:12 AM PDT To: dave at farber.net Subject: RE: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement Dave: This is wrong. First, a broadband provider has to offer an broadband Internet access service to consumers in order to offer additional services in the first place. These services had to comply with the nondiscrimination principles. This also helps ensure that such open Internet connections will remain available. Second, the additional services cannot be offered or promoted as if they are broadband Internet access services. Third, if anything we might do in offering or promoting any additional services appears to the FCC to be undermining broadband Internet access services, it can issue an emergency report to Congress detailing its concerns and laying out recommendations. I think all of this provides a balance that allows for innovation to take place while promoting broadband Internet access services at the same time. After all, if the FCC issued such an emergency report, it would certainly create a lot of pressure very quickly on a provider to change its practices. LINK Link Hoewing Vice President Internet and Technology Policy Verizon 1300 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-515-2420 ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:05 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement Begin forwarded message: From: Jason Calacanis > Date: August 9, 2010 1:40:04 PM PDT To: dave at farber.net Cc: ip > Subject: Re: [IP] VZ Google Announcement Dave, Please tell me if I'm reading Section 5 correctly: it states, basically, that net neutrality applies to services that have been introduced to customers already, but new services can break net neutrality rules? So, since YouTube already exists, it can't be run across a faster Verizon Network that Google pays for the rights to access? What if Google launches YouTube Pro--a completely new service with new offerings. Is that allowed? What if they make a new service called "Gideo" (a new Google Video), that is available in HD only in FIOS homes. Gideo could pay for priority over Verizon's new network called FIOS2? Is this why Verizon stopped investing in Fios? To create a new standard outside the NN world? hmmm..... confused. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Dave Farber > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: "Hoewing, C. L." > Date: August 9, 2010 11:31:59 AM PDT To: David Farber > Subject: FW: URGENT - VZ Google Announcement Dave: For IP. LINK http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInternet.aspx Link Hoewing Vice President Internet and Technology Policy Verizon 1300 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-515-2420 Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -- --------------------- Jason McCabe Calacanis CEO, http://www.Mahalo.com Office: 310-593-6134 / Mobile: 310-456-4900 Blog: http://www.calacanis.com Mailing list: http://bit.ly/jasonslist Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jason AOL IM/Skype: jasoncalacanis Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ________________________________________ From: Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder and all I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: Governments: - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. Regulators: - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access - some in the pocket of operators - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure Businesses - large mobile: - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: - many would like to get into content - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. Anriette > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > for me. > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > trumps. > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > developments. > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these > > codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - ?executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 13 12:27:14 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:57:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> Building on Micheal's post below, Anriette please note that i spoke about multistakeholderism as a policy making form (or forum) and not a discussion forum to quote from my email "The principal> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form," There are many on this list who uphold multistakeholderism as a policy-making forum. That is what I am rebutting. Also, when we only speak of policy discussion forums like with the IGF without talking of the policy making forum into which this discussion must feed, which has to be a public interest based democratic forum, expressly excluding private interests with conflict of interest wrt policy matters being considered, we are promoting both a policy deficit and a democratic deficit. The problem is when policy discussions take the place of policy making, or still worse, as Micheal says, ' the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself." This unfortunately is largely the situation of much of global IG today. Parminder On Friday 13 August 2010 09:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > >> This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a >> developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be >> development agenda.) >> >> Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal >> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business >> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly >> understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic >> interest and private interest. >> >> Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed >> to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing >> wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. >> That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. >> >> On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest >> players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems >> about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However >> the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) >> and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always >> been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global >> society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish >> this difference. >> >> As Carlton notes in his email >> >> Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications >> of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. >> Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of >> money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is >> quixotic to pretend otherwise. >> >> It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working >> for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's >> singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest >> representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems >> built to give political respectability to private interests. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >> >>> Parminder: >>> >>> I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly >>> misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature >>> of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober >>> commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what >>> they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come >>> to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, >>> priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend >>> otherwise. >>> >>> >>> >>> I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre >>> Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. >>> And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that >>> telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and >>> show preference in very business-like practical ways for those >>> customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the >>> light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical >>> portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally >>> sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, >>> volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a >>> marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, >>> for me. >>> >>> >>> >>> We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One >>> of them is to make personal statements that undergird our >>> opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to >>> belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment >>> expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. >>> Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; >>> I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is >>> stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation >>> is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than >>> politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of >>> BP in recent past!] >>> >>> >>> >>> My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture >>> response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of >>> losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of >>> genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency >>> trumps. >>> >>> >>> >>> Carlton >>> >>> >>> >>> From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Carlton >>> >>> On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>> >>> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue >>> for civil society is transparency. >>> >>> >>> No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's >>> subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and >>> open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." >>> >>> How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way >>> of influencing it? >>> >>> >>> >>> The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes >>> and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. >>> >>> Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS >>> Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. >>> >>> >>> Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine >>> Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this >>> when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS >>> and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and >>> bundling would do in the network or Internet space. >>> >>> However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible >>> excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can >>> do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the >>> daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the >>> Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of >>> vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the >>> Internet for a more egalitarian world. >>> >>> You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its >>> i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that >>> the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, >>> and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my >>> view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective >>> which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with >>> responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them >>> strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums >>> but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these >>> developments. >>> >>> In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market >>> place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social >>> interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a >>> space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on >>> these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we >>> take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet >>> based service wont go anywhere. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. >>> >>> Carlton >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Ian and Parminder, >>> >>> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is >>> between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which >>> David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first >>> available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to >>> get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. >>> >>> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds >>> more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts >>> customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not >>> marketing. >>> >>> Where do you see this 'line'? >>> >>> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more >>> productive in Vilnius. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >>> more attention. >>> >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> >>> >>> I agree - we should discuss. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: parminder >>> Reply-To:, parminder >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>> To:, >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>> something similar in Russia. >>> >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net >>> neutrality (NN). >>> >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these >>> codes. >>> >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US >>> at >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>> >>> >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than >>> wired Internet. >>> >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>> upon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 12:44:47 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:44:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1281717887.1779.2337.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Michael I think the the 'democratic deficit' results less from weaknesses in the processes (although these are real) than from weaknesses at the level of grassroots organisation. I would include small, medium, local business in grassroots in this context as much as I would include civil society. If we don't have strong organisations that understand 1) how to understand and promote the public interest, or even 2) how to understand and promote their own interest, policy making processes end up being controlled by the most powerful. Sometimes they are government, sometimes large companies, often, in countries where the public sector lacks capacity and political will, both together. We have to fix this by working from the bottom up... in all sectors. A great example in South Africa at the moment is a group called the Independent Producers Organisation. http://www.ipo.org.za/ They represent small to medium film makers and film and TV companies. They have been a fantastic ally for civil society groups working on copyright issues, broadband, spectrum, and probably most prominently in a national campaign to save our public broadcaster from becoming a 'department' of government with little concern for the public interest. They have knowledge of the broadcasting industry which few civil society organisations have.. so working with them has really added knowledge, and built out capacity as CS orgs. Good examples among governments would be a network promoting the use of free and open source software in government. The real problem in our sector is that there are so few small organisations and local business networks doing consistent policy analysis and advocacy in it. The IGF and the regional IGFs are useful.. but so many of the policy making spaces are still closed in a real sense. What often happens in many developing countries is that when a policy process is semi-open is that only those large companies with large legal and policy teams are able to effectively influence the outcomes. Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 09:07 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > > development agenda.) > > > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > > interest and private interest. > > > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > > this difference. > > > > As Carlton notes in his email > > > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > Parminder: > > > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > > trumps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > > developments. > > > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > > marketing. > > > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > > more attention. > > > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To:, parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > > To:, > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > > something similar in Russia. > > > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > > neutrality (NN). > > > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > > above will be considered a NN violation under these > > > codes. > > > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > > at > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > > wired Internet. > > > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > > upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 13:17:07 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:17:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> References: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1281719827.1779.2546.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Parminder As you know.. I don't personally like the term 'multi-stakeholderism'... neither in referring to policy dialogue or policy-making. Thanks for pointing out that you were referring specifically about policy making. We are not that far apart...but perhaps still some differences in nuance. It would be good to know how you see the private sector participating in policy-dialogue, and in policy-making. My experience has been that in giving ICT business voice in policy-making (in the consultation process, e.g. when drafting legislation) civil society and government are able to anticipate consequences which they would not otherwise have been able to. Also, by giving business voice in the policy-making process (in a facilitated manner) you get buy-in from the private sector which makes it more likely they will adhere to the policy and help implement it. In countries where the public sector does not have the capacity to implement... this is incredibly important. And in the same countries it becomes incredibly important to have a regulatory environment that ensures that the public interest is protected. Sometimes, depending on the specifics, the relationships between public sector/CS and business in a policy and regulation process will be cooperative, and sometimes it will be hostile. But assuming that all private sector entities do, in all cases, are not concerned about the public interest is not helpful. Sometimes they are genuinely interested, and sometimes their private interest can overlap with the the public interest (often the case in pro-competition policy). I agree that the policy discussion and the policy making processes should be separate.. but they should also connect. That a lot of internet policy is made in 'private' spaces does not help. And the public spaces are also problematic. In my country, sadly, the discussion and official submissions are often ignored as the process is finalised. Government ends up making policy that ignores stakeholder input (civil society, community, researchers, business, often all four). Well.. back to work.. discussion to be continued :) Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 21:57 +0530, parminder wrote: > Building on Micheal's post below, Anriette please note that i spoke > about multistakeholderism as a policy making form (or forum) and not a > discussion forum > > to quote from my email > > "The principal> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form," > > > > There are many on this list who uphold multistakeholderism as a > policy-making forum. That is what I am rebutting. > > Also, when we only speak of policy discussion forums like with the IGF > without talking of the policy making forum into which this discussion > must feed, which has to be a public interest based democratic forum, > expressly excluding private interests with conflict of interest wrt > policy matters being considered, we are promoting both a policy deficit > and a democratic deficit. > > The problem is when policy discussions take the place of policy making, > or still worse, as Micheal says, ' > > the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself." > > > This unfortunately is largely the situation of much of global IG today. > > Parminder > > > On Friday 13 August 2010 09:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. > > > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Dear Parminder and all > > > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. > > > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > > > Governments: > > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > > > Regulators: > > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > > - some in the pocket of operators > > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > > > Businesses - large mobile: > > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband > > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > > - many would like to get into content > > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. > > > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. > > > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. > > > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. > > > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. > > > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. > > > > Anriette > > > > > >> This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > >> developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > >> development agenda.) > >> > >> Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > >> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > >> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > >> understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > >> interest and private interest. > >> > >> Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > >> to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > >> wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > >> That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > >> > >> On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > >> players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > >> about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > >> the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > >> and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > >> been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > >> society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > >> this difference. > >> > >> As Carlton notes in his email > >> > >> Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > >> of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > >> Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > >> money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > >> quixotic to pretend otherwise. > >> > >> It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > >> for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > >> singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > >> representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > >> built to give political respectability to private interests. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > >> > >>> Parminder: > >>> > >>> I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > >>> misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > >>> of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > >>> commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > >>> they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > >>> to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > >>> priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > >>> otherwise. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > >>> Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > >>> And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > >>> telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > >>> show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > >>> customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > >>> light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > >>> portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > >>> sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > >>> volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > >>> marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > >>> for me. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > >>> of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > >>> opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > >>> belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > >>> expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > >>> Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > >>> I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > >>> stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > >>> is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > >>> politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > >>> BP in recent past!] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > >>> response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > >>> losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > >>> genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > >>> trumps. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Carlton > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Carlton > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > >>> > >>> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > >>> for civil society is transparency. > >>> > >>> > >>> No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > >>> subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > >>> open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > >>> > >>> How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > >>> of influencing it? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > >>> and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > >>> > >>> Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > >>> Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > >>> > >>> > >>> Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > >>> Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > >>> when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > >>> and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > >>> bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > >>> > >>> However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > >>> excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > >>> do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > >>> daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > >>> Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > >>> vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > >>> Internet for a more egalitarian world. > >>> > >>> You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > >>> i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > >>> the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > >>> and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > >>> view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > >>> which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > >>> responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > >>> strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > >>> but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > >>> developments. > >>> > >>> In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > >>> place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > >>> interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > >>> space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > >>> these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > >>> take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > >>> based service wont go anywhere. > >>> > >>> Parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > >>> > >>> Carlton > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >>> > >>> Ian and Parminder, > >>> > >>> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > >>> between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > >>> David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > >>> available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > >>> get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > >>> > >>> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > >>> more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > >>> customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > >>> marketing. > >>> > >>> Where do you see this 'line'? > >>> > >>> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > >>> productive in Vilnius. > >>> > >>> Best, Ginger > >>> > >>> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Parminder, > >>> > >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > >>> more attention. > >>> > >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > >>> > >>> > >>> I agree - we should discuss. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian Peter > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: parminder > >>> Reply-To:, parminder > >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > >>> To:, > >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >>> > >>> Hi All > >>> > >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > >>> something similar in Russia. > >>> > >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net > >>> neutrality (NN). > >>> > >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these > >>> codes. > >>> > >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > >>> > >>> Parminder > >>> > >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > >>> at > >>> > >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > >>> > >>> > >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > >>> wired Internet. > >>> > >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > >>> upon. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> Translate this email: > >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> Translate this email: > >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 14:42:55 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:42:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <1281717887.1779.2337.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <3173431E109F4433A5FAC04B1E767FD2@userPC> No disagreement on what you say below Anriette, but I would also add that there is a need to find a way of including even more grassroots Internet user organizations such as some with whom I'm currently engaged--Siyafunda http://www.siyafunda.com/; SEIDET http://w3.tue.nl/nl/diensten/daz/bestuurscommissies/tvo/afgelopen_activiteiten/education_for_development_seidet/ and Rlabs www.rlabs.org are all working quite directly with the SA majority population to use ICTs for economic and social development. What they have to say about Internet policy would I think directly inform discussions on Internet policy and development, Broadband deployment policy and so on. I suspect there are equivalent organizations in the range of Sub-Saharan African countries as well. At this point I don't see where they fit into any of the "multi-stakeholder" consultation processes as currently presented/operational. (For better or worse) their current policy engagement in so far as they have one is done through traditional policy/political processes and improving their capacity to influence policy outcomes means providing them support in their current forms of enagagement. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:45 AM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Michael I think the the 'democratic deficit' results less from weaknesses in the processes (although these are real) than from weaknesses at the level of grassroots organisation. I would include small, medium, local business in grassroots in this context as much as I would include civil society. If we don't have strong organisations that understand 1) how to understand and promote the public interest, or even 2) how to understand and promote their own interest, policy making processes end up being controlled by the most powerful. Sometimes they are government, sometimes large companies, often, in countries where the public sector lacks capacity and political will, both together. We have to fix this by working from the bottom up... in all sectors. A great example in South Africa at the moment is a group called the Independent Producers Organisation. http://www.ipo.org.za/ They represent small to medium film makers and film and TV companies. They have been a fantastic ally for civil society groups working on copyright issues, broadband, spectrum, and probably most prominently in a national campaign to save our public broadcaster from becoming a 'department' of government with little concern for the public interest. They have knowledge of the broadcasting industry which few civil society organisations have.. so working with them has really added knowledge, and built out capacity as CS orgs. Good examples among governments would be a network promoting the use of free and open source software in government. The real problem in our sector is that there are so few small organisations and local business networks doing consistent policy analysis and advocacy in it. The IGF and the regional IGFs are useful.. but so many of the policy making spaces are still closed in a real sense. What often happens in many developing countries is that when a policy process is semi-open is that only those large companies with large legal and policy teams are able to effectively influence the outcomes. Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 09:07 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is > that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated > as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. > What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who > should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to > discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making > structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the > policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only > on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is > paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based > democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I > say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic > deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing > issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. > http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, > mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not > get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see > net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be > great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and > applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and > content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest > groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i > said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as > simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on > policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just > depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It > is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and > opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should > not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society > organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made > openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs > to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens > as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change > policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all > the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. > Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public > where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, > results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very > little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important > experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy > making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from > lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those > people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, > workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured > needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. > Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of > multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy > discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > > development agenda.) > > > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > > interest and private interest. > > > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are > > supposed > > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > > this difference. > > > > As Carlton notes in his email > > > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be > > working > > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > Parminder: > > > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, > > > pre > > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > > trumps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in > > > Ginger's > > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no > > > way > > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > > developments. > > > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line > > > is > > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > > marketing. > > > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > > more attention. > > > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To:, parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > > To:, > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > > something similar in Russia. > > > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > > neutrality (NN). > > > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > > above will be considered a NN violation under > > > these > > > codes. > > > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > > at > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > > wired Internet. > > > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > > upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 14:51:50 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:51:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Message-ID: Whoops wrong Siyafunda http://www.zakwathu.com/ But they both do much the same thing... M -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 11:43 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org' Cc: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles No disagreement on what you say below Anriette, but I would also add that there is a need to find a way of including even more grassroots Internet user organizations such as some with whom I'm currently engaged--Siyafunda http://www.siyafunda.com/; SEIDET http://w3.tue.nl/nl/diensten/daz/bestuurscommissies/tvo/afgelopen_activiteiten/education_for_development_seidet/ and Rlabs www.rlabs.org are all working quite directly with the SA majority population to use ICTs for economic and social development. What they have to say about Internet policy would I think directly inform discussions on Internet policy and development, Broadband deployment policy and so on. I suspect there are equivalent organizations in the range of Sub-Saharan African countries as well. At this point I don't see where they fit into any of the "multi-stakeholder" consultation processes as currently presented/operational. (For better or worse) their current policy engagement in so far as they have one is done through traditional policy/political processes and improving their capacity to influence policy outcomes means providing them support in their current forms of enagagement. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:45 AM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Michael I think the the 'democratic deficit' results less from weaknesses in the processes (although these are real) than from weaknesses at the level of grassroots organisation. I would include small, medium, local business in grassroots in this context as much as I would include civil society. If we don't have strong organisations that understand 1) how to understand and promote the public interest, or even 2) how to understand and promote their own interest, policy making processes end up being controlled by the most powerful. Sometimes they are government, sometimes large companies, often, in countries where the public sector lacks capacity and political will, both together. We have to fix this by working from the bottom up... in all sectors. A great example in South Africa at the moment is a group called the Independent Producers Organisation. http://www.ipo.org.za/ They represent small to medium film makers and film and TV companies. They have been a fantastic ally for civil society groups working on copyright issues, broadband, spectrum, and probably most prominently in a national campaign to save our public broadcaster from becoming a 'department' of government with little concern for the public interest. They have knowledge of the broadcasting industry which few civil society organisations have.. so working with them has really added knowledge, and built out capacity as CS orgs. Good examples among governments would be a network promoting the use of free and open source software in government. The real problem in our sector is that there are so few small organisations and local business networks doing consistent policy analysis and advocacy in it. The IGF and the regional IGFs are useful.. but so many of the policy making spaces are still closed in a real sense. What often happens in many developing countries is that when a policy process is semi-open is that only those large companies with large legal and policy teams are able to effectively influence the outcomes. Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 09:07 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is > that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated > as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. > What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who > should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to > discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making > structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the > policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only > on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is > paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based > democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I > say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic > deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing > issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. > http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, > mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not > get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see > net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be > great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to > get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications > for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with > it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and > applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and > content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest > groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i > said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as > simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on > policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just > depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It > is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and > opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should > not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society > organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made > openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs > to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens > as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change > policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all > the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. > Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public > where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, > results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very > little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important > experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy > making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from > lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those > people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, > workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured > needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. > Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of > multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy > discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > > development agenda.) > > > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy > > business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and > > clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions > > between pulbic interest and private interest. > > > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are > > supposed > > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > > the essential difference between private interest players > > (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and > > governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great > > disservice to the global society if in the name of > > multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. > > > > As Carlton notes in his email > > > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be > > working > > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > Parminder: > > > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, > > > pre > > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that > > > piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. > > > Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most > > > rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, > > > even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the > > > public contortions of BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear > > > of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests > > > out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that > > > transparency trumps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in > > > Ginger's > > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no > > > way > > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other > > > player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps > > > driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And > > > this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications > > > like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration > > > and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument > > > can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about > > > the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls > > > that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are > > > creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither > > > stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group > > > perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come > > > up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte > > > them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these > > > forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > > developments. > > > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what > > > we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line > > > is > > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > > marketing. > > > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > > more attention. > > > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To:, parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > > To:, > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > > something similar in Russia. > > > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > > neutrality (NN). > > > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > > above will be considered a NN violation under > > > these > > > codes. > > > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > > at > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > > wired Internet. > > > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > > upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 13 14:54:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:24:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <1281719827.1779.2546.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> <1281719827.1779.2546.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <4C6594D3.9090504@itforchange.net> Dear Anriette Very happy to discuss this very important issue. On Friday 13 August 2010 10:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Parminder > > As you know.. I don't personally like the term 'multi-stakeholderism'... > neither in referring to policy dialogue or policy-making. > Great! :) My preference is for 'deep democracy'. A concept that does not accept governments as sole custodians of public interest, and seeks to include a variety of players, largely civil society, but will also include private players, especially associations of private sector players which arguably represent a public interest viewpoint. However, there is great attention to the issue of relative power of different players, and the effort for inclusion is chiefly and clearly oriented towards interests that get marginalized in normal governance process. Big corporates that are in any case very cosy with governments are looked upon with a good deal of suspicion in using spaces created as part of deepening democracy. > Thanks for pointing out that you were referring specifically about > policy making. We are not that far apart...but perhaps still some > differences in nuance. It would be good to know how you see the private > sector participating in policy-dialogue, and in policy-making. > Policy dialogue spaces need to give special consideration to voices not often heard. I know of no country, democratic or authoritarian, where the big corporates do not have easy access to all levels of powers. In fact in all countries they have a much closer relationship than can be characterized by 'easy access'. Any formal policy dialogue space therefore should make sure that corporates are preferably only represented by their associations and not as companies as such. However, if at all it is necessary to get some company in because of its special presence in the area of discussion, or because there is a desire not to stop anyone from coming in, an extra-ordinary effort has to be made to ensure that the major part of the policy dialogue space is allowed for the normally less heard voices, or (as mostly the case will be) their representatives. And these steps I mention are to be taken seriously, and evidently. This is not an 'also to do' list. These steps are 'the' thing. Without these necessary steps multistakeholderism actually reduces participation of less heard voices of marginalised people, by giving legitimacy to dominant private interests influencing policies. Since you have quoted examples from the ground, let me also do so from our experience in India. First of all we too work with private sector small scale FOSS players for our FOSS related policy work. We find nothing wrong in it. (I can discuss this angle at more length later.) We have lately seen two processes of ICT policy development. One of them, ICT in schools policy, was so completely highjacked by corporates that the minister had to step in and scrap the process. (This is rare thing which happened because the concerned minister was an old fashioned socialist). Another process, of open standards in egov policy, also has been considerably highjacked by the same corporates. All this, especially the ICT in schools policy process, was done in the name of multistakeholderism. On the other hand, a few years back India's National Curriculum Framework was prepared through a nation-wide old style consultative process, with public hearings in many places across the country, and was much more participative. It was clear that the process had to actually reach out to public interest actors, especially those representing less heard of voices. ('Multistakeholder' or MS events on the other hand are mostly held by private sector money in enclaves whose gatekeeping in open and subtle ways is done by dominant interests.) I am not saying that old fashioned publicly funded consultations are perfect, but I will try to keep seeking improvements in them than take up the new ones that I see under multistakeholder umbrella, employing concepts like multistakeholder funding etc, which are really largely industry controlled. I can vouch for it first hand that this is the situaion in India in ICT area. that is our experience from the ground. You perhaps know of e-India event, tipped as world's largest e-event or something. This is organized by a body which started as a civil society organization, took a lot of funder money, and now holds events largely using funds provided by large digital companies, where the whole list of speakers is just of gov officials and representatives of large companies, mostly sponsors, with, hold your breath, often not a single civil society speaker, not even the co-opting level kind which some other MS events do. > My experience has been that in giving ICT business voice in > policy-making (in the consultation process, e.g. when drafting > legislation) civil society and government are able to anticipate > consequences which they would not otherwise have been able to. > > Also, by giving business voice in the policy-making process (in a > facilitated manner) you get buy-in from the private sector which makes > it more likely they will adhere to the policy and help implement it. In > countries where the public sector does not have the capacity to > implement... this is incredibly important. And in the same countries it > becomes incredibly important to have a regulatory environment that > ensures that the public interest is protected. > This is the real politik, acknowledging the powerful, argument. I dont much like it :). I understand the 'weak state' situation, esp in Africa. But then civil society should side with the weak state - however perfect, trying to improve it, rather than legitimise the power of big corporates. They will in any case do what they can. Notional opposition to this state of affairs at least keeps us moving in the right directions.... with some hope of democratic powers triumphing some day. > Sometimes, depending on the specifics, the relationships between public > sector/CS and business in a policy and regulation process will be > cooperative, and sometimes it will be hostile. > > But assuming that all private sector entities do, in all cases, are not > concerned about the public interest is not helpful. > This is not at all the assumption. For instance, Indian generic drug industry is the biggest ally in struggles against stronger IP regimes in the area of drugs. > Sometimes they are genuinely interested, and sometimes their private > interest can overlap with the the public interest (often the case in > pro-competition policy). > > I agree that the policy discussion and the policy making processes > should be separate.. but they should also connect. That a lot of > internet policy is made in 'private' spaces does not help. And the > public spaces are also problematic. > They should connect.... but to connect there should be sufficient policy making space in the first place. In the area of global IG that is largely absent, and thus the need to work for it, beyond supporting the IGF. > In my country, sadly, the discussion and official submissions are often > ignored as the process is finalised. Government ends up making policy > that ignores stakeholder input (civil society, community, researchers, > business, often all four). > Yes, the fight for real democracy is a long and hard one. In this we are together. My concern is that multistakeholderism as preached and practised today is becoming one of the biggest challenges to democracy, Apologies for the long response. Best. Parminder > Well.. back to work.. discussion to be continued :) > > Anriette > > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 21:57 +0530, parminder wrote: > >> Building on Micheal's post below, Anriette please note that i spoke >> about multistakeholderism as a policy making form (or forum) and not a >> discussion forum >> >> to quote from my email >> >> "The principal> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form," >> >> >> >> There are many on this list who uphold multistakeholderism as a >> policy-making forum. That is what I am rebutting. >> >> Also, when we only speak of policy discussion forums like with the IGF >> without talking of the policy making forum into which this discussion >> must feed, which has to be a public interest based democratic forum, >> expressly excluding private interests with conflict of interest wrt >> policy matters being considered, we are promoting both a policy deficit >> and a democratic deficit. >> >> The problem is when policy discussions take the place of policy making, >> or still worse, as Micheal says, ' >> >> the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself." >> >> >> This unfortunately is largely the situation of much of global IG today. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 13 August 2010 09:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? >>> >>> In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. >>> >>> Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. >>> >>> The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder >>> Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> >>> Dear Parminder and all >>> >>> I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. >>> >>> My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. >>> >>> Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ >>> >>> It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. >>> >>> Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: >>> >>> Governments: >>> - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators >>> - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. >>> >>> Regulators: >>> - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access >>> - some in the pocket of operators >>> - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure >>> >>> Businesses - large mobile: >>> - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband >>> - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users >>> - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) >>> >>> Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: >>> - many would like to get into content >>> - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content >>> - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues >>> - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places >>> >>> Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. >>> >>> NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: >>> - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators >>> - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues >>> >>> Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. >>> >>> I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. >>> >>> In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. >>> >>> Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. >>> >>> Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. >>> >>> One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. >>> >>> Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. >>> >>> How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. >>> >>> But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>>> This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a >>>> developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be >>>> development agenda.) >>>> >>>> Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal >>>> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business >>>> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly >>>> understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic >>>> interest and private interest. >>>> >>>> Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed >>>> to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing >>>> wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. >>>> That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest >>>> players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems >>>> about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However >>>> the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) >>>> and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always >>>> been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global >>>> society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish >>>> this difference. >>>> >>>> As Carlton notes in his email >>>> >>>> Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications >>>> of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. >>>> Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of >>>> money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is >>>> quixotic to pretend otherwise. >>>> >>>> It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working >>>> for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's >>>> singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest >>>> representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems >>>> built to give political respectability to private interests. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Parminder: >>>>> >>>>> I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly >>>>> misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature >>>>> of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober >>>>> commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what >>>>> they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come >>>>> to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, >>>>> priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend >>>>> otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre >>>>> Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. >>>>> And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that >>>>> telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and >>>>> show preference in very business-like practical ways for those >>>>> customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the >>>>> light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical >>>>> portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally >>>>> sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, >>>>> volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a >>>>> marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, >>>>> for me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One >>>>> of them is to make personal statements that undergird our >>>>> opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to >>>>> belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment >>>>> expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. >>>>> Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; >>>>> I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is >>>>> stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation >>>>> is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than >>>>> politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of >>>>> BP in recent past!] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture >>>>> response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of >>>>> losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of >>>>> genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency >>>>> trumps. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carlton >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carlton >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue >>>>> for civil society is transparency. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's >>>>> subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and >>>>> open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." >>>>> >>>>> How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way >>>>> of influencing it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes >>>>> and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. >>>>> >>>>> Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS >>>>> Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine >>>>> Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this >>>>> when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS >>>>> and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and >>>>> bundling would do in the network or Internet space. >>>>> >>>>> However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible >>>>> excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can >>>>> do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the >>>>> daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the >>>>> Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of >>>>> vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the >>>>> Internet for a more egalitarian world. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its >>>>> i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that >>>>> the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, >>>>> and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my >>>>> view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective >>>>> which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with >>>>> responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them >>>>> strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums >>>>> but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these >>>>> developments. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market >>>>> place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social >>>>> interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a >>>>> space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on >>>>> these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we >>>>> take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet >>>>> based service wont go anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. >>>>> >>>>> Carlton >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>>> >>>>> Ian and Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is >>>>> between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which >>>>> David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first >>>>> available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to >>>>> get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. >>>>> >>>>> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds >>>>> more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts >>>>> customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not >>>>> marketing. >>>>> >>>>> Where do you see this 'line'? >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more >>>>> productive in Vilnius. >>>>> >>>>> Best, Ginger >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>>>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>>>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>>>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>>>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>>>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >>>>> more attention. >>>>> >>>>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>>>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree - we should discuss. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: parminder >>>>> Reply-To:, parminder >>>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>>> To:, >>>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>>> something similar in Russia. >>>>> >>>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net >>>>> neutrality (NN). >>>>> >>>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these >>>>> codes. >>>>> >>>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than >>>>> wired Internet. >>>>> >>>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>>> upon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: >>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: >>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Aug 13 16:15:39 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:15:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BA76@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Dear Deidre: No, perish the thought. This is a space for exchanging ideas on this or any related other subject, even with folks who may describe themselves as experts. In context, you touched on a very important question that brought several intriguing ideas top of mind. Is the use of social engineering - the matter of using the data and information derived and extracted from the observed behaviour of the crowd - to exact ordered behavior for profit or advantage ever desirable? Here is the thing. "Free" is never so free. At least not on the Internet. This is perhaps the most direct contemporary instance that underscores the value associated with data...and the price of "knowing". That knowing comes with a price tag. The only difference is that the Internet model upends the idea of who gets the bill; it isn't always obvious since the guy judged with the greater ability to pay real dollars often is the one who gets the bill. In fact the business model has people competing to pay your bill. So now, ask yourself, why would someone want to pay my ticket? Let me extend the rule of thumb in this way. If you get a service, however slight that service, so long as it consumes resources in provisioning, someone pays. Take this like an article of faith: there truly are no free lunches. I teach Information Science and we are forever exhorting our students to group work, extolling the benefits of collaboration. Then we are stumped when they use bits and pieces of content from here and there in a 'mashup' paper without recording the source of every idea. The collective has a downside. [Apropos, there was a very interesting blog entry in the NYT this week on plagiarism.] Undoubtedly, there is a place for 'rugged' individualism. The importance of that one person - that brilliant contrarian - to innovation because they dare to think outside the box is well known to history. Indeed, it is sometimes the centerpiece of national myths. American mythmaking, for example, have written out of history - some say whitewash - the life-giving help extended to the early European colonists by Native Americans to burnish this ideal. Individualism can go only so far in some things. There are equally compelling tales of innovation generated in the collective brilliance of the crowd. Group think, you might say, in furtherance of the common good. We almost intuitively understand that when the power equation is in play, maybe 'crowding' is the single best response for those who are weaker in that construct; the classic reason for collaborating. And sharing the pain - and rewards -is the orthodox posture in movements beyond memory, even whole societies. There are enough exemplars from the lives of social animals like bees and ants to go round and underline the case. And then there are the ills that come with a crowd; think of yob behavior experienced by football fans in certain countries or the lynch mobs of too many places. People and things share attributes that if combined, can bode ill..or good. [Interestingly enough, the Latin root for 'conspire' means 'to breathe together'!] I will always be humble and concede that I cannot always determine outcomes. For in this life there always shall be too many uncontrollable variables; be it with business or people. But I would very much prefer to know what attributes are in play that might affect all possible outcomes. I want to "know" what "they" know! For the 'knowing' is always better than not. Carlton From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder and everyone, I am very conscious of the fact that I am NOT a techie, so please forgive me if I am stating the obvious/making a fool of myself or both. As far as I am concerned "network neutrality" speaks to the management of the hardware, software and traffic of the internet to preserve interoperability and open equitable access ... a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. I was prodded into replying by what Parminder has to say quoted above. This aspect of the Internet is deeply important to me. For some time I have been alarmed at and thinking about a predatory behaviour online which I describe to myself as "webherding". Subsequently I discovered that other people call the same phenomenon "social engineering" which sounds almost respectable :-) Herding behaviour is something that man has learned to make use of to his benefit - but at the same time sharks do it, wolves do it, very much to the detriment of that which is herded. When herded, creatures lose their individuality, and the possibility of innovation, the possibility of choice. A world is created which is the diametric opposite of the type of world the Internet is sold to us as being. Somehow our perception of the world has been shifted to a focus where business ethics have become a sort of norm - if it is good business then it is also generally good and should not be questioned. Deirdre Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To:, parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To:, Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Aug 13 17:33:47 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:33:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] The FCC and the bandwidth wars - Column from the Washington Post Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Another view on the NN 'wars". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead Carlton Samuels -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 14 03:58:38 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:28:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Another view on the NN 'wars". > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead > > Carlton Samuels > For some unclear reasons the author of the article has chosen to completely ignore the most discussed about issue in the verizon-google deal - treating wireless networks in a manner different than wired ones vis a vis net neutrality. By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' is being used now. It was almost two years ago in Hyderabad IGF that IT for Change did a sign on campaign for 'protecting the publicness of the Internet'. A couple of years earlier when a call was made for submitting possible themes for the first IGF we had submitted the theme of 'defining and fostering the publicness of the Internet'. When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 04:29:48 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:29:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BA76@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BA76@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: I am finding a highly ironic example of lack of NN on mobiles while reading this thread. I can read most posts, except those that are very long. This seems to be mainly where folk havent bottom trimmed their mails. Can we try to do so in future. Remember, be conservative in what you send......rgds, McTim On 8/13/10, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > Dear Deidre: > No, perish the thought. This is a space for exchanging ideas on this or any > related other subject, even with folks who may describe themselves as > experts. In context, you touched on a very important question that brought > several intriguing ideas top of mind. Is the use of social engineering - > the matter of using the data and information derived and extracted from the > observed behaviour of the crowd - to exact ordered behavior for profit or > advantage ever desirable? > > Here is the thing. "Free" is never so free. At least not on the Internet. > This is perhaps the most direct contemporary instance that underscores the > value associated with data...and the price of "knowing". That knowing comes > with a price tag. The only difference is that the Internet model upends the > idea of who gets the bill; it isn't always obvious since the guy judged with > the greater ability to pay real dollars often is the one who gets the bill. > In fact the business model has people competing to pay your bill. So now, > ask yourself, why would someone want to pay my ticket? Let me extend the > rule of thumb in this way. If you get a service, however slight that > service, so long as it consumes resources in provisioning, someone pays. > Take this like an article of faith: there truly are no free lunches. > > I teach Information Science and we are forever exhorting our students to > group work, extolling the benefits of collaboration. Then we are stumped > when they use bits and pieces of content from here and there in a 'mashup' > paper without recording the source of every idea. The collective has a > downside. [Apropos, there was a very interesting blog entry in the NYT this > week on plagiarism.] > > Undoubtedly, there is a place for 'rugged' individualism. The importance of > that one person - that brilliant contrarian - to innovation because they > dare to think outside the box is well known to history. Indeed, it is > sometimes the centerpiece of national myths. American mythmaking, for > example, have written out of history - some say whitewash - the life-giving > help extended to the early European colonists by Native Americans to burnish > this ideal. Individualism can go only so far in some things. > > There are equally compelling tales of innovation generated in the collective > brilliance of the crowd. Group think, you might say, in furtherance of the > common good. We almost intuitively understand that when the power equation > is in play, maybe 'crowding' is the single best response for those who are > weaker in that construct; the classic reason for collaborating. And sharing > the pain - and rewards -is the orthodox posture in movements beyond memory, > even whole societies. There are enough exemplars from the lives of social > animals like bees and ants to go round and underline the case. And then > there are the ills that come with a crowd; think of yob behavior experienced > by football fans in certain countries or the lynch mobs of too many places. > > People and things share attributes that if combined, can bode ill..or good. > [Interestingly enough, the Latin root for 'conspire' means 'to breathe > together'!] I will always be humble and concede that I cannot always > determine outcomes. For in this life there always shall be too many > uncontrollable variables; be it with business or people. But I would very > much prefer to know what attributes are in play that might affect all > possible outcomes. I want to "know" what "they" know! > > For the 'knowing' is always better than not. > > Carlton > > From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Dear Parminder and everyone, > I am very conscious of the fact that I am NOT a techie, so please forgive me > if I am stating the obvious/making a fool of myself or both. As far as I am > concerned "network neutrality" speaks to the management of the hardware, > software and traffic of the internet to preserve interoperability and open > equitable access > > ... a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to > > probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve > > the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who > > cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless > > greatly affected by these developments. > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is > a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public > media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps > without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the > Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free > Internet based service wont go anywhere. > > I was prodded into replying by what Parminder has to say quoted above. This > aspect of the Internet is deeply important to me. For some time I have been > alarmed at and thinking about a predatory behaviour online which I describe > to myself as "webherding". Subsequently I discovered that other people call > the same phenomenon "social engineering" which sounds almost respectable :-) > > Herding behaviour is something that man has learned to make use of to his > benefit - but at the same time sharks do it, wolves do it, very much to the > detriment of that which is herded. When herded, creatures lose their > individuality, and the possibility of innovation, the possibility of choice. > A world is created which is the diametric opposite of the type of world the > Internet is sold to us as being. > > Somehow our perception of the world has been shifted to a focus where > business ethics have become a sort of norm - if it is good business then it > is also generally good and should not be questioned. > > Deirdre > > Parminder > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, > parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- Sent from my mobile device Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 15:28:31 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:58:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Aug 14 17:40:55 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:40:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> On 08/14/2010 12:58 AM, parminder wrote: > By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' > is being used now. Perhaps we ought to be somewhat careful about how that term is used. Much, perhaps most, of the internet infrastructure is owned and operated by private actors, particularly if one considers mobile phone providers that carry IP packets as also being part of the internet. I think that many of us look at the term "public internet" as a blanket phrase that covers the net as en entirety. However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or operated by a public entity. In that latter case the notion of net neutrality that is being espoused for the "public internet" would be net neutrality only on that small part that is owned or operated by some sort of public entity. That would suggest that the remainder, the privately owned or operated parts, would be free to engage in traffic engineering. And even in that narrow use of the words "public internet" there is danger - for example here in the USA the military and its supporting military-industrial complex operate several of the domain name system root servers. It would be naive to believe that the US military would agree to subordinate US national security to the principles of network neutrality. (I personally would not be surprised if the US were, in fact, using the rather unique observation capabilities of a root server to do some - what word should I use? - observation. For more on that notion see http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000232.html ) We are entering an er of increasing use of private interconnects between large content providers and content deliverers. This is nothing new, but it is of increasing popularity. And it is something that requires non-neutral treatment of packets even if that non-neutral treatment is differential routing onto a private interconnect based on shallow inspection of IP addresses or protocol. Personally I am of the belief that the words "network neutrality" are essentially meaningless. I look at the situation and accept the fact that non-equal treatment ("traffic engineering") is both reasonable and, in some cases (particularly for conversational or real-time control purposes), it is necessary. (For example, look at the way that even small delays in the carriage of domain name system packets multiply into perceptions of sluggish application behaviour. That suggests that some carriers may reasonably chose a non-neutral path in which they give DNS packets priority.) So I look beyond the notion of pure network neutrality and ask the next question - in whose hands are vested the power to pull the levers and twist the dials of control of the non-neutral behaviour of the net? To my mind that power should be vested in the users, and by explicit or implicit delegation to their applications and their contracted ISPs. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 18:58:21 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:58:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is unequal treatment of Internet users justifiable based on ability to pay for it? Message-ID: On 8/14/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: > I think that many of us look at the term "public internet" as a blanket > phrase that covers the net as en entirety. > > However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public > internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or > operated by a public entity. As with many words in the dictionary, numerous meanings exist but reasonably intelligent users and writers are able to distinguish them and convey clear meanings in the specific context in which they arise. The existence of multiple meanings for the term "public internet" is not, on its face, even a concern, unless and until it is shown that users of the term are unable to convey themselves clearly. [snip] > Personally I am of the belief that the words "network neutrality" are > essentially meaningless. I look at the situation and accept the fact > that non-equal treatment ("traffic engineering") is both reasonable and, > in some cases (particularly for conversational or real-time control > purposes), it is necessary. > > (For example, look at the way that even small delays in the carriage of > domain name system packets multiply into perceptions of sluggish > application behaviour. That suggests that some carriers may reasonably > chose a non-neutral path in which they give DNS packets priority.) If my internet access is sluggish, the problem could be either (1) the internet (2) the specific website I'm accessing, or (3) my computer. If unequal treatment is allowed via a private agreement between Giant Corporation and, say, Verizon, then some websites will continue to be slow while Giant Corporation's website will load much better. This will falsely lead many people to conclude that the problem is with the remaining sluggish websites, leading them to incrementally and unfairly avoid those websites, and.or lead to excessive investment and loss of time and money attempting to fix one's own computer when it actually doesn't need fixing. While you correctly point to the problem of sluggish performance of websites creating the inference of a website problem, allowing unequal treatment only exacerbates that problem and misleads people, whenever they (as is often the case) have also experienced other slow websites. > > So I look beyond the notion of pure network neutrality and ask the next > question - in whose hands are vested the power to pull the levers and > twist the dials of control of the non-neutral behaviour of the net? To > my mind that power should be vested in the users, and by explicit or > implicit delegation to their applications and their contracted ISPs. "Opting in" via a contract of adhesion full of fine print with an ISP or provider like Verizon does not result in meaningful "governance by agreement" but only in government-by-large-ISPs and those who control or own infrastructure of the Internet. For this reason, vesting "power" "in users" to delegate to applications and their contracted ISPs" is quite nearly the opposite of empowering the actual users of the internet, which is nearly the entire basis of the concept of the Internet as a public good, as well as the basis of much individual and even corporate investment in the concept of the Internet and Internet presence. Dictating public policy based on ability to pay, with the result being expressly admitted "unequal treatment" is, in my opinion, very poor public policy. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Sat Aug 14 19:25:27 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:25:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBA5@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> I certainly support the idea that we must agree common definitions before we sally forth. The cleavage being advocated between the wired and wireless Internet is certainly something that we must consider, if only because for much of our world, the Internet is going to be a wireless neighbourhood. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:59 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Another view on the NN 'wars". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead Carlton Samuels For some unclear reasons the author of the article has chosen to completely ignore the most discussed about issue in the verizon-google deal - treating wireless networks in a manner different than wired ones vis a vis net neutrality. By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' is being used now. It was almost two years ago in Hyderabad IGF that IT for Change did a sign on campaign for 'protecting the publicness of the Internet'. A couple of years earlier when a call was made for submitting possible themes for the first IGF we had submitted the theme of 'defining and fostering the publicness of the Internet'. When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Aug 14 19:33:47 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:33:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Is unequal treatment of Internet users justifiable based on ability to pay for it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> On 08/14/2010 03:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public >> internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or >> operated by a public entity. > > As with many words in the dictionary, numerous meanings exist but > reasonably intelligent users and writers are able to distinguish them > and convey clear meanings "clear meanings"? Clear to whom? The argument you are making is one that says "public internet" and "internet" are of identical meaning, which is to say that the word "public" is a meaningless and thus superfluous adjective. On the other hand some of us read words, particularly words of legal import, so that every word has meaning and no word is surplus. Which is to say that the word "public" in the phrase "public internet" is a word that has meaning. But you missed my larger point - it is very possible, even perhaps likely, that those who author statements of net neutrality couched with phrases such as "public internet" actually mean their statements only to apply to those parts that are owned or operated by a public entity. Humpty Dumpty famously asked who is the master, Humpty or the word. When performing exegesis on statements by Google or Verizon or others about network neutrality it would be useful to remember that the authors of those statements are using extremely careful language to navigate very tricky policy waters and that those authors are the masters of their own words. Regarding your dismissal of a provider who traffic engineers their network routers to give priority to domain name query and response packets: Why should not a provider build a network that makes their network feel more responsive to users? What is wrong with that? And, finally, you dismiss the ability of people to make their own decisions (or to delegate those choices to their chosen agents) and thus say that there should be no choice possible at all because to do so simply empowers the rich over the poor. That strikes me as an argument that says that people are unable to live their own lives and that they must depend upon protection from those with more expertise or time. That was the same argument used by Queen Victoria and King Leopold to justify their imperial policies over the people in their African colonies in the 19th century. It is not an argument that I am particularly willing to accept. I am not opposed to protective agencies and even paternalistic institutions - I do believe that governments, and citizens under those governments, do have duties of those kinds. However, I do object to such agencies and institutions when they do not allow individuals to opt out and chose their own path. The internet is not free. If people are not allowed to chose the way that they want to use the internet then those choices will be made by others. And more often than not those choices will be made by those who view the internet as a means to make money from users or, as we are beginning to increasingly see, as a means to impose governmental policies. User choice is not some sort of anathema; user choice works just fine in other areas of life. Are you opposed to services such as Federal Express of UPS that provided tiered package delivery services for tiered prices? Again I ask, if the knobs and levers that control how traffic is passed across the internet are not knobs and levers that can be manipulated by users then who is going to have the power to do that manipulation and to what ends? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 20:10:19 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:10:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: As I suspect "public internet" for most proponents on this list refers to something more than just a bunch of IP-based networks owned/operated by some public entities, I guess the challenge now is to try and define what (more/else) 'public internet' might mean, if anything -- as Paque suggested, among other terms. My own guess is, if there's such a thing as public internet, it'll have to be built on the idea that TCP/IP is a public good (or in the public domain). But I'm afraid we'll need more than that, which will depend on political will and negotiations among stakeholders. This will probably involve the deployment and acceptance of some norms (maybe even a "political fiction") and concepts that will set forth, and maybe guarantee, the terms of a "minimum" or "basic" Internet access to all users in the name of public good (which is my provisional understanding of 'public internet'). Now if that understanding points in the right direction (the terms of the "minimum" being what's at stake, and still to be specified) then the reality is, between a basic access to TCP/IP operated networks and undiscriminated access to virtually all IP-generated networks and capabilities available at one point in time around the world, there probably is quite a room for engineering whatever which may differentiate traffic... Unless (and we're back to what exactly 'public internet' means, if not that.) OECD released the following report a couple years ago on "Internet Traffic Prioritisation" you may want to re-visit for the purpose of this renewed discussion: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/63/38405781.pdf Mawaki On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/14/2010 12:58 AM, parminder wrote: > >> By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' >> is being used now. > > Perhaps we ought to be somewhat careful about how that term is used. > > Much, perhaps most, of the internet infrastructure is owned and operated by > private actors, particularly if one considers mobile phone providers that > carry IP packets as also being part of the internet. > > I think that many of us look at the term "public internet" as a blanket > phrase that covers the net as en entirety. > > However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public > internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or operated > by a public entity. > > In that latter case the notion of net neutrality that is being espoused for > the "public internet" would be net neutrality only on that small part that > is owned or operated by some sort of public entity.  That would suggest that > the remainder, the privately owned or operated parts, would be free to > engage in traffic engineering. > > And even in that narrow use of the words "public internet" there is danger - > for example here in the USA the military and its supporting > military-industrial complex operate several of the domain name system root > servers.  It would be naive to believe that the US military would agree to > subordinate US national security to the principles of network neutrality. >  (I personally would not be surprised if the US were, in fact, using the > rather unique observation capabilities of a root server to do some - what > word should I use? - observation.  For more on that notion see > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000232.html ) > > We are entering an er of increasing use of private interconnects between > large content providers and content deliverers.  This is nothing new, but it > is of increasing popularity.  And it is something that requires non-neutral > treatment of packets even if that non-neutral treatment is differential > routing onto a private interconnect based on shallow inspection of IP > addresses or protocol. > > Personally I am of the belief that the words "network neutrality" are > essentially meaningless.  I look at the situation and accept the fact that > non-equal treatment ("traffic engineering") is both reasonable and, in some > cases (particularly for conversational or real-time control purposes), it is > necessary. > > (For example, look at the way that even small delays in the carriage of > domain name system packets multiply into perceptions of sluggish application > behaviour.  That suggests that some carriers may reasonably chose a > non-neutral path in which they give DNS packets priority.) > > So I look beyond the notion of pure network neutrality and ask the next > question - in whose hands are vested the power to pull the levers and twist > the dials of control of the non-neutral behaviour of the net?  To my mind > that power should be vested in the users, and by explicit or implicit > delegation to their applications and their contracted ISPs. > >                --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 15 00:23:48 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:23:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means something...as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its inventor, Google. ________________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 15 01:33:49 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:03:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] network neutrality and the public internet In-Reply-To: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> References: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> A very interesting discussion! And one very much pointing to the heart of the issue. Let me chip in too. Karl says he doesnt understand the meaning of 'public'. But his discourse is full of, in fact almost entirely based on, the term 'user'. As argued many times before, I do not understand the social meaning and implications of this term 'user', and find its use in socio-political discourse around the Internet very problematic. Before going on with this, let me state a meta point. Language and discourse has its political economy What terms we use and/ or understand and which not often depends on where we stand, what we want and what we are trying to do. Karl, and many like him, do not 'understand' 'public' because (let me guess !) a strong fear of government controls on the Internet is a very important, close to the central, part of their world view about the phenomenon of Internet. I do not like/understand the term 'user' because 1. this term defines human beings in relation to technology rather than the other way around 2. More importantly, the use of the term seeks to, in some strange way, make all those whom technology impacts as equal or, at any rate, to be at the same starting point. But all progressive socio-political discourse starts with the premise that people are structurally located differently, and thus are to be treated as different for all or most social analysis. Karl's 'user' looks to be a very empowered individual (of course ungendered, for one), shaped from ethics (and possibilities) of individual responsibilities and individual freedoms, to which the 'collective' could, more likely than not, mostly only cause loses of these freedoms. We all recognize this ideology, and I am not being dismissive about it. I too speak from a ideology. I am sorry, but like all social progressives, I am unable to accept this world view. I know and work among people to whom it is (further) demeaning and humiliating to be told that it is basically all upto them to exercise their choices and freedoms, and so bad it they cannot. We are convinced that these people are subject to structural disadvantage, and our daily social, economic and political processes (including perhaps discussions on this list) feed and constantly renew these structures that cause disadvantage. The only way is to intervene with means to correct these structural disadvantages - and one of the principal means for that is the political process, and, further, the concept of 'public'. I would, tentatively, define public as something to which people (citizens) have some kind of a universalistic right of appropriation. No social term can be defined exactly and in all encompassing manner (that is more in the technical realm). Like any other right, such rights of appropriation of the public are never absolute. To cut it short, and come to the discussion on the 'publicness of the Internet', we know that there are public parks where the right of appropriation is more or less unhindered and there are public utilities (telecommunications have always been a public utility) where this right is considerably qualified (you may have to pay something for use etc). My main contention is, when we have rather fruitfully employed the term 'public' in the pre-Internet world, and the term is basic to a democratic system, why should it suddenly become meaningless in the Internet space? I think it is techno-utopianism to look at Internet space as something basically different in terms of its socio-political categories, and is ideologically based. The only way, IMHO, to make progress on the net neutrality issue is to explore and fix publicness characteristics of the Internet, and from there to explore a model of Internet regulation that best balances the needs of innovation, economic growth, equity, social justice etc. Equally important for a global group like ours, is to differentiate interests of developing countries, and groups otherwise marginalized, and not club everyone together as 'users', in order to specifically see what kind of net neutrality or 'public internet' regulations serves all these deferential interests. Parminder On Sunday 15 August 2010 05:03 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/14/2010 03:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > >>> However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public >>> internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or >>> operated by a public entity. >> >> As with many words in the dictionary, numerous meanings exist but >> reasonably intelligent users and writers are able to distinguish them >> and convey clear meanings > > "clear meanings"? Clear to whom? > > The argument you are making is one that says "public internet" and > "internet" are of identical meaning, which is to say that the word > "public" is a meaningless and thus superfluous adjective. > > On the other hand some of us read words, particularly words of legal > import, so that every word has meaning and no word is surplus. Which > is to say that the word "public" in the phrase "public internet" is a > word that has meaning. > > But you missed my larger point - it is very possible, even perhaps > likely, that those who author statements of net neutrality couched > with phrases such as "public internet" actually mean their statements > only to apply to those parts that are owned or operated by a public > entity. Humpty Dumpty famously asked who is the master, Humpty or the > word. When performing exegesis on statements by Google or Verizon or > others about network neutrality it would be useful to remember that > the authors of those statements are using extremely careful language > to navigate very tricky policy waters and that those authors are the > masters of their own words. > > Regarding your dismissal of a provider who traffic engineers their > network routers to give priority to domain name query and response > packets: Why should not a provider build a network that makes their > network feel more responsive to users? What is wrong with that? > > And, finally, you dismiss the ability of people to make their own > decisions (or to delegate those choices to their chosen agents) and > thus say that there should be no choice possible at all because to do > so simply empowers the rich over the poor. > > That strikes me as an argument that says that people are unable to > live their own lives and that they must depend upon protection from > those with more expertise or time. That was the same argument used by > Queen Victoria and King Leopold to justify their imperial policies > over the people in their African colonies in the 19th century. It is > not an argument that I am particularly willing to accept. > > I am not opposed to protective agencies and even paternalistic > institutions - I do believe that governments, and citizens under those > governments, do have duties of those kinds. However, I do object to > such agencies and institutions when they do not allow individuals to > opt out and chose their own path. > > The internet is not free. If people are not allowed to chose the way > that they want to use the internet then those choices will be made by > others. And more often than not those choices will be made by those > who view the internet as a means to make money from users or, as we > are beginning to increasingly see, as a means to impose governmental > policies. > > User choice is not some sort of anathema; user choice works just fine > in other areas of life. Are you opposed to services such as Federal > Express of UPS that provided tiered package delivery services for > tiered prices? > > Again I ask, if the knobs and levers that control how traffic is > passed across the internet are not knobs and levers that can be > manipulated by users then who is going to have the power to do that > manipulation and to what ends? > > --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 15 01:38:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:08:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C677D43.5020603@itforchange.net> On Sunday 15 August 2010 09:53 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means something... Why dont you tell us what it means Lee, :). (preferably in socio-political terms and not technical in deference to the fact that this group is primarily involved with socio-political discourse as a basis of policy engagements/ advocacy) > as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its inventor, Google. > ________________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Sun Aug 15 04:43:25 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:43:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the privatization of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up to the not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit actors and thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular cases. Wolfgang Benedek Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter : Hi All The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be development agenda.) Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. As Carlton notes in his email Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems built to give political respectability to private interests. Parminder On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Parminder: I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in very business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency trumps. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To: , Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 15 06:51:40 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:51:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: network neutrality and the public internet In-Reply-To: <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> References: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C67C6BC.1070300@cavebear.com> Perhaps I expressed myself imperfectly in my prior note to which you replied. My initial purpose when I engaged in this thread was merely to express a warning that one should not unquestionably accept the phrase "public internet" as having one and only one meaning; that the expressions of net neutrality couched in terms of the "public internet" may be more constrictive than many of us hope. I remain unconvinced that those who wrote the Google/Verizon statement were necessarily using that phrase in the broad scope that is often given to that phrase by some people here. In my follow-up I noted that the deeper question of who gets the power to control of the many ways in which the net (or more specifically, network routers) may handle packets. Given that I daily deal with the technical nuts-and-bolts of the internet at the deepest levels I perceive the concrete reality of the mechanisms used to classify different packets and given them different queue priorities or send them down different paths. So I daily face concrete questions regarding who has the authority to manipulate these mechanisms. I recognize, and agree with you, that many of us, particularly many of us who live in the US, have a strong individualistic point of view. That is quite true. It is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. I suggested in my prior email that the even in highly consensus-driven social systems we ought to govern the internet in a way that leaves open the door to be different. In other words, those who wish to be individualists ought to be able to use the internet in the way they see fit and not be coerced into constrained channels. (Such people may feel social repercussions as a result of their choice; I'm saying is that there ought to be no *legal* barrier.) It was never my intention to suggest that groups of people ought not to be free to act in concert or to delegate choices as to network neutrality (or non-neutrality) to larger groups, such as governmental bodies, unions, or associations. It is my own feeling that most people on the internet - users - will chose that course either through explicit choice or by silently accepting such a regime. The key, however, is that it be clear that the authority for such collective action or governance derives from the voluntary, and alterable, choices of the members, the individuals. This notion is nothing new - It is the idea underlying many modern democratic societies. In the language used in the latter 1700's the phrase for this was "consent of the governed". The reason the internet has grown is that it does not (at least until recently) constrain innovation at the edges. Groups do not innovate - rather innovation begins with an act by an individual making a choice to do something differently than others are doing. It would be sad if we outlawed innovation on the internet. And one of the ways that innovation may occur is when people are given the means to take control of the ways that their internet packets are handled as those packets cross all or part of the net. As usual my touchstone on this is my "First Law of the Internet": First Law of the Internet http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 15 08:06:03 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:36:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> Dear Wolfgang, I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two conditions are met 1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not try to seek to supplant it 2. The important issue of very strong differences in the power of different actors in a multistakeholder setting is always kept foremost, and sufficiently factored into multistakeholder structures. In this regard, the immense power of mega-corporates and there proclivity to use multistakeholder platforms both for stalling public interest policy making, and legitimising their own lobbying activities should be carefully and evidently guarded against. As discussed in emails following the one you responded to, I most often see that multistakeholderism is preached and practised outside the above two important conditions, and this is my problem with this concept. Thanks for your engagement with this discussion. Parminder On Sunday 15 August 2010 02:13 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why > such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the > idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and > solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some > actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the > national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that > the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder > approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the > privatization of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up > to the not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit > actors and thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular > cases. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter : > > Hi All > > The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not > what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my > hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails > rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and > expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is > that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, > which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a > vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that > doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic > interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing > these global corporates. This is the reason that network > neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big > and central part of what would be development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The > principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the > foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, > and clearly understand and accept the long established > distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are > supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact > there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are > within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, > definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public > interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have > different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be > engaged with. However the essential difference between private > interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil > society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be > doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of > multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be > working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges > government's singular authority by complementing it with other > forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, > a concept which seems built to give political respectability to > private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > Parminder: > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you > badly misread my misgivings. To report what is – and > recognize the nature of things – can hardly be construed as > endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on > the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in > the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical > issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to > follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications > business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order > that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that > I can declare that telecommunications companies have always > had preferred customers and show preference in very > business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine > business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a > [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion > of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other > seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging > that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is > untenable. At least, for me. > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. > One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t > want to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. > The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is > where you’ll find me. Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple > products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I > will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. > Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its > public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It > was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in > recent past!] > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big > picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to > act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with > other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for > my argument that transparency trumps. > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Carlton > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN > issue for civil society is transparency. > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in > Ginger's subsequent email "*That way, as Americans lose access > to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > * > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have > no way of influencing it? > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, > processes and activities intended to create advantage for one > or other player. There will always be players willing to make > investments to pump their wares; something for free that > others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" > text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were > apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK > fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and > sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit > without those apps. And the smart decision to freely > distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making > a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch > in marketing imagination. > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And > this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone > applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what > vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or > Internet space. > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of > argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more > bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on > one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the > structural implications of vertical integrations in the > network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more > egalitarian world. > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with > its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive > walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple > products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple > products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil > society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the > deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the > progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of > those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives > are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a > market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical > social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, > it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without > discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the > Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple > act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. > > Parminder > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the > line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' > which David > > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get > everyone > > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it > sounds more > > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > customers. My > > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this > too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) > to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume > charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody > here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a > distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be > attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other > distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To: > , > parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To: > > , > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is > providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only > for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i > read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in > some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who > know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if > such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance > of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we > should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom > regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless > or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired > Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and > Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the > only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very > partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public > Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where > does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that > we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 15 08:47:56 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:47:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Light Regulation References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBA5@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F4D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Another view on the NN 'wars". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead My reading of the article is that the author argues for something like a "light Internet regulation", inspired by old fashioned "communication law" (which is telecommunications law). He says that heavy regulation makes no sense, but no-regulation is also not acceptable anymore. This should be discussed. Even more: The Internet does not know territorial boundaries. A national regulation has to be put into an international context. It makes no sense to argue for an "unregulated Internet" abroad and a "regulated Internet" at home. My question is whether the "Washington Post" has switched sides and argues now for an "International light Internet regulation", inspired by the international telecommunication regulation (and the ITU?), which the US government opposed for many years? Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 10:46:02 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:46:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> References: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 8/15/10, parminder wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two > conditions are met > 1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not > try to seek to supplant it This above is a reasonable condition, given that replacement of democracy by multi-stakeholderism (no matter to what extent it may or may not mimic democracy) is a replacement/revolution against democracy. Per the globally agreed-to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the only legitimate source of power is power derived from the people as a whole, i.e. republics and democracies. See Article 21, UN Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop Furthermore, everyone has the equal right to participate not only in elections but also in public service. THE UNACCEPTABLE CONSEQUENCE OF LEAVING INTERNET GOVERNANCE TO UNRESTRAINED CONTRACTUAL FREEDOM: If Parminder and I, whether we be poor or billionaires, sign a contract that results in KARL's rights becoming second-class, such as by increasing our internet speed at his expense, Karl is now a second-class internet "citizen" and he's had nothing to say about it. I will only say that this abuse of contract violates virtually every norm, law, principle and right related to the fundamental equality of human beings, the fundamental right of democracy, and even violates business contract law, which provides as one of its cardinal laws that contracts only affect the parties that SIGN them, not third parties. (Third parties in narrow situations may BENEFIT from a contract but certainly may not have their rights negatively impacted against their consent). The above is just like a private contract between two corporations to make sectors of public internet users into second class or third class citizens. It's completely illegitimate. Now, if one were to further suggest that it is undesirable for the government to intervene to protect equality in situations like the above, or that the government is even powerless to do so, is a remarkable and even shocking proposition. Unlike Karl's framework in which users are left to themselves, what we are really talking about here is two or more big users getting together and negatively impacting the rights and experiences of those not allowed at the table of democracy. The one and only way to fudge with the above principles prohibiting the creation of second class citizens that has been able to survive at all is illustrated by this example: There is a desire for extra speed (for example, on highway toll-ways) and a fast lane is constructed and passes for that fast lane are made available for purchase on an EQUAL basis by all people (ignoring the reality that some can't afford this "equality.") Here again, the principle of equality is preserved though only by ignoring economic inequalities. In any case, this seeming exception is VERY controversial in all of my experience. In a nutshell, contracts can not impact negatively the rights of people who don't agree to that contract. Yet this is one major type of contract being contemplated. OF course freedom of contract exists under the assumption that it doesn't hurt anybody else, as it usually doesn't. So, Karl suggests that "users" should dictate the form of the internet, and I reply that this can only apply when users are impacting ONLY themselves and no other parties. Karl also suggests that "unequal" treatment is desirable or necessary sometimes. Here again, private contract is not a legitimate way to set up inequality. Assuming it is ever legitimate to set up second class citizenship in any respect, that would be a public policy and rights question for government. Of course, absent effective public intervention, those with market power may succeed in setting up inequality and negatively impacting others' rights and experiences, but the existence of any such examples, if any, begs the question of their legality and legitimacy. After all, things like slavery have persisted in the private sector to this day despite universal condemnation by law in the public sector. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 11:00:20 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:00:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Light Regulation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F4D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBA5@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F4D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: One principle with global applicability and agreement is that freedom of contract does not include the right to negatively impact the rights of persons who have never agreed to the contract in question, much less signed it. This would seem to be fatal to a topical subclass of contracts now at issue where large corporations act or propose to allocate to themselves superior rights or service at the expense of everyone else. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/15/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Another view > on the NN 'wars". > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead [snip] > This should be discussed. Even more: The Internet does not know territorial > boundaries. A national regulation has to be put into an international > context. It makes no sense to argue for an "unregulated Internet" abroad and > a "regulated Internet" at home. My question is whether the "Washington Post" > has switched sides and argues now for an "International light Internet > regulation", inspired by the international telecommunication regulation (and > the ITU?), which the US government opposed for many years? -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 15 12:38:39 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:38:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C677D43.5020603@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4C677D43.5020603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sure: Inte ________________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions On Sunday 15 August 2010 09:53 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means something... Why dont you tell us what it means Lee, :). (preferably in socio-political terms and not technical in deference to the fact that this group is primarily involved with socio-political discourse as a basis of policy engagements/ advocacy) > as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its inventor, Google. > ________________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 13:54:49 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] Google and the Search for the Future Message-ID: <5485C7C80F5E4489AEAD3526DD6146D3@userPC> I think this article is of more general interest as it points to the range of Internet relad issues that are emerging at least from Google's perspective--but of course, Google is, at least for the moment, at the very centre of much of that world. M -----Original Message----- From: oia-bounces at lists.bway.net [mailto:oia-bounces at lists.bway.net] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 10:32 AM To: OIA List Subject: [OIA] Google and the Search for the Future Some thoughtful discussion for a change via a MSM conduit. Hat tip: Frank Collucio Google and the Search for the Future The Web icon's CEO on the mobile computing revolution, the future of newspapers, and privacy in the digital age. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#articleTabs%3Darticle By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. To some, Google has been looking a bit sallow lately. The stock is down. Where once everything seemed to go the company's way, along came Apple's iPhone, launching a new wave of Web growth on a platform that largely bypassed the browser and Google's search box. The "app" revolution was going to spell an end to Google's dominance of Web advertising. But that's all so six-months-ago. When a group of Journal editors sat down with Eric Schmidt on a recent Friday, Google's CEO sounded nothing like a man whose company was facing a midlife crisis, let alone intimations of mortality. For one thing, just a couple days earlier, Google had publicly estimated that 200,000 Android smartphones were being activated daily by cell carriers on behalf of customers. That's a doubling in just three months. Since the beginning of the year, Android phones have been outselling iPhones by an increasing clip and seem destined soon to outstrip Apple in global market share. True, Apple sells its phones for luscious margins, while Google gives away Android to handset makers for free. But not to worry, says Mr. Schmidt: "You get a billion people doing something, there's lots of ways to make money. Absolutely, trust me. We'll get lots of money for it." "In general in technology," he says, "if you own a platform that's valuable, you can monetize it." Example: Google is obliged to share with Apple search revenue generated by iPhone users. On Android, Google gets to keep 100%. That difference alone, says Mr. Schmidt, is more than enough to foot the bill for Android's continued development. And coming soon is Chrome OS, which Google hopes will do in tablets and netbooks what Android is doing in smartphones, i.e., give Google a commanding share of the future and leave, in this case, Microsoft in the dust. Can it all be so easy? Google's stock price has fallen nearly $250 since the beginning of the year. Financial pundits have started to ask skeptical questions, wondering why it doesn't give more of its ample cash back to shareholders in the form of buybacks and dividends. Some suspect that all that temptation merely encourages Mr. Schmidt, along with founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page-the triumvirate running the company-to splurge on gimmicky ideas that never pay off. Fortune magazine recently called Google a "cash cow" and suggested more attention be paid to milking it rather than running off in search of the next big thing. But to hear Mr. Schmidt tell it, the real challenge is one not yet on most investors' minds: how to preserve Google's franchise in Web advertising, the source of almost all its profits, when "search" is outmoded. The day is coming when the Google search box-and the activity known as Googling-no longer will be at the center of our online lives. Then what? "We're trying to figure out what the future of search is," Mr. Schmidt acknowledges. "I mean that in a positive way. We're still happy to be in search, believe me. But one idea is that more and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type." "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," he elaborates. "They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next." Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are." Google also knows, to within a foot, where you are. Mr. Schmidt leaves it to a listener to imagine the possibilities: If you need milk and there's a place nearby to get milk, Google will remind you to get milk. It will tell you a store ahead has a collection of horse-racing posters, that a 19th-century murder you've been reading about took place on the next block. Says Mr. Schmidt, a generation of powerful handheld devices is just around the corner that will be adept at surprising you with information that you didn't know you wanted to know. "The thing that makes newspapers so fundamentally fascinating-that serendipity-can be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically," Mr. Schmidt says. Mr. Schmidt obviously has an eye to his audience, which this day consists of folks with an abiding devotion to the newspaper business. He speaks in sorrowful tones about the "economic disaster that is the American newspaper." He assures us that in the coming deluge trusted "brands" will be more important than ever. Just as quickly, though, he adds that whether the winners will be new brands or existing brands remains to be seen. On one thing, however, Google is willing to bet: "The only way the problem [of insufficient revenue for news gathering] is going to be solved is by increasing monetization, and the only way I know of to increase monetization is through targeted ads. That's our business." Mr. Schmidt is a believer in targeted advertising because, simply, he's a believer in targeted everything: "The power of individual targeting-the technology will be so good it will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them." That's a bit scary when you think about it. But for investors and executives the big question, of course, is which companies will control these opportunities. Google may see itself as friend and helper to the media business, but it also clearly sees itself in control of the targeting information. Says Mr. Schmidt: "As you go from the search box [to the next phase of Google], you really want to go from syntax to semantics, from what you typed to what you meant. And that's basically the role of [Artificial Intelligence]. I think we will be the world leader in that for a long time." Between here and there, though, the company faces ever-growing legal, political and regulatory obstacles. The net neutrality debate, which Google has led, has taken a sudden turn that has many of its former allies in the "public interest" sector shouting "treason." What was most striking about the set of net neut "principles" Google produced this week with former antagonist Verizon was that they didn't apply to wireless. "The issues of wireless versus wireline gets very messy," Mr. Schmidt told one news site. "And that's really an FCC issue, not a Google issue." Wait. Isn't the future of the Internet wireless these days? Isn't wireless the very basis of the new partnership between Google and Verizon, built on promoting Google's Android software? But Google has now broken ranks with its allies and dared to speak about the sheer impracticality of net neutrality on mobile networks where demand is likely to outstrip capacity for the foreseeable future. If that weren't about to become a sticky political wicket for the company, it also faces growing antitrust, privacy and patent scrutiny, fanned by a growing phalanx of Beltway opponents, the latest being Larry Ellison and Oracle. "There's a set of people who are intrinsic oppositionists to everything Google does," Mr. Schmidt acknowledges resignedly. "The first opponent will be Microsoft." Mr. Schmidt is familiar with the game-as chief technology officer of Sun Microsystems in the 1990s, he was a chief fomenter of the antitrust assault on Bill Gates & Co. Now that the tables are turned, he says, Google will persevere and prevail by doing what he says Microsoft failed to do-make sure its every move is "good for consumers" and "fair" to competitors. Uh huh. Google takes a similarly generous view of its own motives on the politically vexed issue of privacy. Mr. Schmidt says regulation is unnecessary because Google faces such strong incentives to treat its users right, since they will walk away the minute Google does anything with their personal information they find "creepy." Really? Some might be skeptical that a user with, say, a thousand photos on Picasa would find it so easy to walk away. Or a guy with 10 years of emails on Gmail. Or a small business owner who has come to rely on Google Docs as an alternative to Microsoft Office. Isn't stickiness-even slightly extortionate stickiness-what these Google services aim for? Mr. Schmidt is surely right, though, that the questions go far beyond Google. "I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time," he says. He predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites. "I mean we really have to think about these things as a society," he adds. "I'm not even talking about the really terrible stuff, terrorism and access to evil things," he says. Not that Google is a doubter of the value of social media. Mr. Schmidt awards Facebook his highest accolade, calling it a "company of consequence." And though "there is a lot of hot air, a lot of venture money" in the sector right now, he predicts that one or two more "companies of consequence" will be born among the horde of new players just coming to life now. A skeptic might wonder whether, despite present glory, Google itself might yet prove a flash in the pan. The company has enormous technological confidence. Mr. Schmidt describes how YouTube, its video-serving site, almost "took down" the company in its early days, thanks to the swelling outflow of video dispatched from its servers to users around the globe. Salvation was the "proxy cache"-lots of local servers around the world holding the most popular videos. "The technology that Google invented allows us to put those things very close to you," says Mr. Schmidt. "It was a tremendous technological achievement." But with YouTube, as with lots of Google projects, there remains the question of how to make money. Google captured the search wave and shows every sign of positioning itself successfully for the mobile wave. As for the waves after that, your guess may be as good as Mr. Schmidt's. Mr. Jenkins writes the Journal's weekly Business World column. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Sun Aug 15 13:57:12 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:57:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: network neutrality and the public internet In-Reply-To: <4C67C6BC.1070300@cavebear.com> References: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> <4C67C6BC.1070300@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBD4@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Well said! Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 5:52 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: network neutrality and the public internet Perhaps I expressed myself imperfectly in my prior note to which you replied. My initial purpose when I engaged in this thread was merely to express a warning that one should not unquestionably accept the phrase "public internet" as having one and only one meaning; that the expressions of net neutrality couched in terms of the "public internet" may be more constrictive than many of us hope. I remain unconvinced that those who wrote the Google/Verizon statement were necessarily using that phrase in the broad scope that is often given to that phrase by some people here. In my follow-up I noted that the deeper question of who gets the power to control of the many ways in which the net (or more specifically, network routers) may handle packets. Given that I daily deal with the technical nuts-and-bolts of the internet at the deepest levels I perceive the concrete reality of the mechanisms used to classify different packets and given them different queue priorities or send them down different paths. So I daily face concrete questions regarding who has the authority to manipulate these mechanisms. I recognize, and agree with you, that many of us, particularly many of us who live in the US, have a strong individualistic point of view. That is quite true. It is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. I suggested in my prior email that the even in highly consensus-driven social systems we ought to govern the internet in a way that leaves open the door to be different. In other words, those who wish to be individualists ought to be able to use the internet in the way they see fit and not be coerced into constrained channels. (Such people may feel social repercussions as a result of their choice; I'm saying is that there ought to be no *legal* barrier.) It was never my intention to suggest that groups of people ought not to be free to act in concert or to delegate choices as to network neutrality (or non-neutrality) to larger groups, such as governmental bodies, unions, or associations. It is my own feeling that most people on the internet - users - will chose that course either through explicit choice or by silently accepting such a regime. The key, however, is that it be clear that the authority for such collective action or governance derives from the voluntary, and alterable, choices of the members, the individuals. This notion is nothing new - It is the idea underlying many modern democratic societies. In the language used in the latter 1700's the phrase for this was "consent of the governed". The reason the internet has grown is that it does not (at least until recently) constrain innovation at the edges. Groups do not innovate - rather innovation begins with an act by an individual making a choice to do something differently than others are doing. It would be sad if we outlawed innovation on the internet. And one of the ways that innovation may occur is when people are given the means to take control of the ways that their internet packets are handled as those packets cross all or part of the net. As usual my touchstone on this is my "First Law of the Internet": First Law of the Internet http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Aug 15 16:19:26 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:19:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on mobiles Message-ID: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Hi, I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. a.____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Aug 15 17:04:00 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:04:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Message-ID: <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Avri Perhaps I gave the wrong impression. When I said I don't like the term 'multi-stakeholderism' I simply meant that the 'ism' at the end of multi-stakeholder makes me feel that we have become more pre-occupied with the form of the participation than its content. I am completely in favour of multi-stakeholder participation in all policy processes and I don't feel that the multi-stakeholder model contravenes democracy. My concerns are that: - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil society, government and business. - this obscures diversity within each of those groups - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy way to brand processes as being democratic I agree with you that it is way of achieving greater democracy. But I don't think we should be uncritical. There is still room for improvement. Mainstreaming or integration of gender into every programme and policy resulted in a lot of token references to gender equality and in many cases in less attention being given to equal rights or women's empowerment. We want to avoid a similar trend... a process is not necessarily going to be democratic simply because it is multi-stakeholder. I wrote this about 5 years ago. We were having similar debates then :) http://www.apc.org/en/news/access/world/multi-stakeholder-participation-and-ict-policy-pro Anriette On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:19 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders > in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of > the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the > very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional > and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to > me. > > Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention > to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. > > Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when > it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need > to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other > instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and > that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. > > Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority > wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are > hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all > the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy > without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but > devolves in a dictatorship of personality. > > Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions > in environments where there is no overarching constitutional > instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or > group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it > sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. > The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in > discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or > not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, > outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who > can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those > who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity > building to bring in others. > > Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is > fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as > ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be > global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to > force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To > give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of > telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the > first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been > possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still > hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the > Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current > governance models to overtake it and destroy it. > > a.____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 17:43:35 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:43:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: The phrase "greater democracy" is only meaningful if a transition from representative democracy to direct democracy is envisioned. Multistakeholder-ism may be a move in the direction of democracy in a sense -- if the baseline is purely business/government and one is adding some civil society groups -- but multistakeholderism is not democratic, and thus nothing to content oneself with, for this basic reason: Democracy is rule by ALL the people. Aristocracy is rule by a subset of less than all the people (not through elected representatives of all the people.) Multistakeholderism is thus a form of aristocracy, in which some civil society groups, and not others, get a voice. That voice is often not their true voice, either, because in many cases those voices can and are replaced if and when they become too outspoken. All too often the civil society persons asked to testify in Washington DC, for example, are most sycophantic and establishment-friendly, and don't really have a door open to grassroots civil society. When business corporations are given a vote in multistakeholderism, this vote is one that they absolutely don't have in a real democracy. All of the natural person individuals within a corporation have votes, so why indeed would or should individuals who associate with a corporation get an additional weight to their vote nobody else gets just because their corporation has a seat at the table? Tallying up the real support that corporations have in terms of numbers of human beings, they are given something akin to a one thousand percent or more increase in voting power, whenever the stakeholder composition is anything like, say, 1/3 business, 1/3 government/regulatory and 1/3 civil society. The point at which multi-stakeholderism actually becomes close to approximating the accountability of democratic representatives is the point at which business interests will abandon that multi-stakeholder model and take their chances with elected and unelected governments, which they then stand a better chance at controlling the outcomes in their favor I'm not the least bit cynical, but am only stating a fundamental point of law in layperson's terms, when I say that corporations exist solely to make a profit and have no essential social ethics, democratic values, or commitment to the public interest or even to public goods. If a corporation adopts any of these as a business strategy - the only way they CAN adopt anything - it is eternally subject to being overridden by the legal command to make a profit or else face a derivative lawsuit from shareholders for the tort of legal "waste" of corporate assets. Most simply put, the following resolves the basic question here, and decisively and conclusively so: Any agreement or contract reached by two or more parties can never legitimately affect the rights of persons who are not parties to that agreement (at a multistakeholder summit) or contract (such as Verizon and Google). Under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is only ONE legitimate source of political authority and that is ALL the people. Any institution that can't trace its lineage to all the people (as opposed to some subset of people) that is also negatively impacting the interests or rights of people who are themselves not represented by freely elected representatives is an institution that has usurped real authority and is running at a legitimacy deficit of 100%. Thus, private contract, or trade association or multistakeholder group can do the job it is asked to do, because it will use contracts or agreements that, by purporting to alter the rights of people not parties to those agreements, are utterly illegitimate. The only entity that can do the job is a democratically representative institution that can trace its legitimacy to ALL the people of a given jurisdiction. If it is merely inconvenient to create democratic institutions, that doesn't strike me as a worthy objection. Other than religion, the only thing people have voluntarily and consciously worked and sacrificed their lives for around the world is democracy. To have something as fundamental as the internet become non-democratic because of the perceived inconvenience of setting up democratic systems globally is something I would like to see (if it were possible) explained to any one of the millions who have sacrificed their lives for the dream of democracy or the right to vote. I imagine they woudl be indignant, yet calmly remind everyone of the Universal Declaration's adoption and expansion after WWII, perhaps reading this paragraph of the Preamble and then asking "Why would you think this process is so hard when essentially every nation in the world is committed to it??:" "Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as **a common standard** of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration **constantly in mind,** shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their*** universal and effective recognition and observance,*** both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." --Preamble to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (emphasis added ***) Multistakeholderism, if it has any power, is an abdication of the most solemn responsibilities of all states reached just after the end of the most deadly war this world has ever seen, WWII. It is not, and was not, written in an atmosphere of "unrealistic idealism." The ratifying states understood then, if not now, that attempting to affect the rights of people in one's own country, or around the world, without legitimate democrafic representation is ultimately a prescription for civil unrest or war because nobody likes not having a say, at least through freely elected representatives. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 19:02:59 2010 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:02:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Seeking non-U.S. blogs/articles re: Google/Verizon and net neutrality Message-ID: Dear friends, I'm trying to get a better sense of how different people in different parts of the world view the Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal. While a couple of lists I'm on have members from around the world who have provided some great insights, I am also hoping to find a broader range of publicly quotable and linkable material published on blogs and news websites around the world. If you have written or recently encountered articles or blog posts (in any language) that you think provide useful insight about the potential long-term global implications of the Google/Verizon proposal - in the event that something akin to what they are proposing were to be implemented in the U.S. and perhaps also in markets - or for that matter about the general significance of both broadband and wireless net neutrality for people in various countries and regions, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share any links you've got. Thanks so much!! Rebecca -- Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 19:44:38 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:44:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I couldn't agree more. The fundamental danger of multistakeholderism is unfortunately evident in the workings of this group in relation to the IGF. Rather than seeing (and acting accordingly) that multistakeholder discussions are a prelude to policy there is the assumption that it can become the policy making process itself. The consequence is that rather than acting so that multistakeholder discussions reinforce and support democratic decision making the intent is that it acts parallel and superordinate to it with the necessary effect of hollowing out democratic governance. This has the ultimate effect of reinforcing the role and influence of the corporate sector and their compatriots among the NGO's and maginalizing the grassroots whose only avenue to participation in decision making is via democratic processes however difficult and corrupted those might be. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 2:44 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on The phrase "greater democracy" is only meaningful if a transition from representative democracy to direct democracy is envisioned. Multistakeholder-ism may be a move in the direction of democracy in a sense -- if the baseline is purely business/government and one is adding some civil society groups -- but multistakeholderism is not democratic, and thus nothing to content oneself with, for this basic reason: Democracy is rule by ALL the people. Aristocracy is rule by a subset of less than all the people (not through elected representatives of all the people.) Multistakeholderism is thus a form of aristocracy, in which some civil society groups, and not others, get a voice. That voice is often not their true voice, either, because in many cases those voices can and are replaced if and when they become too outspoken. All too often the civil society persons asked to testify in Washington DC, for example, are most sycophantic and establishment-friendly, and don't really have a door open to grassroots civil society. When business corporations are given a vote in multistakeholderism, this vote is one that they absolutely don't have in a real democracy. All of the natural person individuals within a corporation have votes, so why indeed would or should individuals who associate with a corporation get an additional weight to their vote nobody else gets just because their corporation has a seat at the table? Tallying up the real support that corporations have in terms of numbers of human beings, they are given something akin to a one thousand percent or more increase in voting power, whenever the stakeholder composition is anything like, say, 1/3 business, 1/3 government/regulatory and 1/3 civil society. The point at which multi-stakeholderism actually becomes close to approximating the accountability of democratic representatives is the point at which business interests will abandon that multi-stakeholder model and take their chances with elected and unelected governments, which they then stand a better chance at controlling the outcomes in their favor I'm not the least bit cynical, but am only stating a fundamental point of law in layperson's terms, when I say that corporations exist solely to make a profit and have no essential social ethics, democratic values, or commitment to the public interest or even to public goods. If a corporation adopts any of these as a business strategy - the only way they CAN adopt anything - it is eternally subject to being overridden by the legal command to make a profit or else face a derivative lawsuit from shareholders for the tort of legal "waste" of corporate assets. Most simply put, the following resolves the basic question here, and decisively and conclusively so: Any agreement or contract reached by two or more parties can never legitimately affect the rights of persons who are not parties to that agreement (at a multistakeholder summit) or contract (such as Verizon and Google). Under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is only ONE legitimate source of political authority and that is ALL the people. Any institution that can't trace its lineage to all the people (as opposed to some subset of people) that is also negatively impacting the interests or rights of people who are themselves not represented by freely elected representatives is an institution that has usurped real authority and is running at a legitimacy deficit of 100%. Thus, private contract, or trade association or multistakeholder group can do the job it is asked to do, because it will use contracts or agreements that, by purporting to alter the rights of people not parties to those agreements, are utterly illegitimate. The only entity that can do the job is a democratically representative institution that can trace its legitimacy to ALL the people of a given jurisdiction. If it is merely inconvenient to create democratic institutions, that doesn't strike me as a worthy objection. Other than religion, the only thing people have voluntarily and consciously worked and sacrificed their lives for around the world is democracy. To have something as fundamental as the internet become non-democratic because of the perceived inconvenience of setting up democratic systems globally is something I would like to see (if it were possible) explained to any one of the millions who have sacrificed their lives for the dream of democracy or the right to vote. I imagine they woudl be indignant, yet calmly remind everyone of the Universal Declaration's adoption and expansion after WWII, perhaps reading this paragraph of the Preamble and then asking "Why would you think this process is so hard when essentially every nation in the world is committed to it??:" "Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as **a common standard** of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration **constantly in mind,** shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their*** universal and effective recognition and observance,*** both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." --Preamble to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (emphasis added ***) Multistakeholderism, if it has any power, is an abdication of the most solemn responsibilities of all states reached just after the end of the most deadly war this world has ever seen, WWII. It is not, and was not, written in an atmosphere of "unrealistic idealism." The ratifying states understood then, if not now, that attempting to affect the rights of people in one's own country, or around the world, without legitimate democrafic representation is ultimately a prescription for civil unrest or war because nobody likes not having a say, at least through freely elected representatives. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 16 01:49:39 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Message-ID: <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Avri I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model " My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional supra-structures built over this basic norm. We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening democracy (which are very well established) from those of multistakeholderism. So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the democratic public sphere.) Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to mega-corporates. Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of public interest. This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise of unbridled corporate power even more. As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world through the Internet. Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. You said, "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. " The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things may not be as unfanthomable. Parminder On Monday 16 August 2010 01:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. > > Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. > > Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. > > Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. > > Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. > > Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. > > a.____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Aug 16 02:58:12 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:58:12 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder I really do not see big differences between "deepening dmocrcy" and "multistakeholderism". It is a little bit playing with words based on one sided interpretations of the concepts behind the words. The key issue of MS is "dialogue" among various groups on a more equal footing. MS is NOT a political decision making process. As Michael has outlined on this list, it is a "prelude" for policy decisions. In my eyes it is a rather strong prelude which more less guides the decision makers into a certain direction (risking opposition from the other stakeholders if their decision differs fundamentally from the outcome of the MS discussion). All stakeholders have different interest (and follow different mechanisms). The MS process tries to identify where common interests are and how individual interests can be realized without harming legitimate interests of others. There is no "one size fits all" model. Each Internet Governance subject can produce another MS model and there can be various "coalitions". The import thing is that in the prelude phase of a policy decision (that is in the PDP process) all voices are heard. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Mo 16.08.2010 07:49 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism Avri I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model " My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional supra-structures built over this basic norm. We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening democracy (which are very well established) from those of multistakeholderism. So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the democratic public sphere.) Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to mega-corporates. Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of public interest. This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise of unbridled corporate power even more. As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world through the Internet. Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. You said, "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. " The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things may not be as unfanthomable. Parminder On Monday 16 August 2010 01:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. a.____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 16 03:00:45 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:30:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <4C68E21D.4060000@itforchange.net> Dear Anriette I agree. The real problem is not with the term 'multistakeholder participation', which is very useful and has been around for quite some time, but with 'multistakeholderism' (MSism). Especially, when MSism is sought to elevated to a new form of policy making (or as often, not making policy when required). Parminder On Monday 16 August 2010 02:34 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Avri > > Perhaps I gave the wrong impression. When I said I don't like the term > 'multi-stakeholderism' I simply meant that the 'ism' at the end of > multi-stakeholder makes me feel that we have become more pre-occupied > with the form of the participation than its content. > > I am completely in favour of multi-stakeholder participation in all > policy processes and I don't feel that the multi-stakeholder model > contravenes democracy. > > My concerns are that: > > - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude > 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil > society, government and business. > - this obscures diversity within each of those groups > - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy > way to brand processes as being democratic > > I agree with you that it is way of achieving greater democracy. But I > don't think we should be uncritical. There is still room for > improvement. Mainstreaming or integration of gender into every programme > and policy resulted in a lot of token references to gender equality and > in many cases in less attention being given to equal rights or women's > empowerment. > > We want to avoid a similar trend... a process is not necessarily going > to be democratic simply because it is multi-stakeholder. > > I wrote this about 5 years ago. We were having similar debates then :) > > http://www.apc.org/en/news/access/world/multi-stakeholder-participation-and-ict-policy-pro > > Anriette > > > > > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:19 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders >> in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of >> the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the >> very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional >> and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to >> me. >> >> Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention >> to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. >> >> Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when >> it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need >> to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other >> instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and >> that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. >> >> Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority >> wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are >> hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all >> the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy >> without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but >> devolves in a dictatorship of personality. >> >> Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions >> in environments where there is no overarching constitutional >> instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or >> group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it >> sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. >> The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in >> discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or >> not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, >> outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who >> can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those >> who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity >> building to bring in others. >> >> Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is >> fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as >> ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be >> global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to >> force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To >> give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of >> telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the >> first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been >> possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still >> hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the >> Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current >> governance models to overtake it and destroy it. >> >> a.____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Mon Aug 16 05:29:50 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:29:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Just to say that I do agree with Your concerns with two references: Fung, A., Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (2001) and Malena, C., Challenges and Best Practices in the Managment and Governance of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships Involving UN and Civil Society actors (2004); A similar analysis would be welcome including to corporate actors. Kind regards Wolfgang Am 15.08.10 14:06 schrieb "parminder" unter : Dear Wolfgang, I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two conditions are met 1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not try to seek to supplant it 2. The important issue of very strong differences in the power of different actors in a multistakeholder setting is always kept foremost, and sufficiently factored into multistakeholder structures. In this regard, the immense power of mega-corporates and there proclivity to use multistakeholder platforms both for stalling public interest policy making, and legitimising their own lobbying activities should be carefully and evidently guarded against. As discussed in emails following the one you responded to, I most often see that multistakeholderism is preached and practised outside the above two important conditions, and this is my problem with this concept. Thanks for your engagement with this discussion. Parminder On Sunday 15 August 2010 02:13 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder, Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the privatization of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up to the not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit actors and thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular cases. Wolfgang Benedek Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter : Hi All The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be development agenda.) Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. As Carlton notes in his email Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems built to give political respectability to private interests. Parminder On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Parminder: I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in very business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency trumps. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To: , Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int Mon Aug 16 06:32:06 2010 From: Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int (HIBBARD Lee) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:32:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC0683197D@OBELIX.key.coe.int> You may wish to consider the adopted position of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe regarding measures to promote the public service value of the Internet, adopted on 7 November 2007 Regards to all, Lee Hibbard ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 14 August 2010 21:29 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon Aug 16 12:06:03 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:06:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BD95@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Well said and +1! The key idea is the possibility of those normally relegated to the edges or shut out altogether having a seat at the table, giving one a chance to present views that would normally not be heard. The overwhelming misapprehension is that a seat at the table guarantees equality in outcomes. That is not the case. For me, just knowing the players that support a different perspective in any multifaceted argument is a great help in forging winning alliances. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:19 PM To: IGC Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi, I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. a.____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 12:07:32 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:07:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 16 Aug 2010, at 01:49, parminder wrote: > > I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. Anytime. I think of the multistakeholder model and the task of preserving and strengthening it, as well as CS's capability to participate fully in it, as one of the most fundamental issues we have before us. I understand that this is my particular view and may not be shared by many. > > "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model " > > My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. I do not understand this sentence. What democratic form is bypassed in civil society or in Global Policy making. We do not have any sort of constitutional structure whereby a democratic format other than the Multistakeholder modality exist. At least I haven't seen one. Sure, some of us live in countries that have some sort of democratic voting, but unless we are going to leave everything in the hands of the nations states, there is no other democratic form that i see - nor do i see one on the any horizon. So please explain the democratic form we are bypassing. I do see the multistakeholder model as good for actually making IG policy, not just for talking about it. So in this I disagree with Wolfgang: > The key issue of MS is "dialogue" among various groups on a more equal footing. MS is NOT a political decision making process. I agree if isn't yet, but I believe it can, and I believe it should, be. I just believe neither the model nor the participants have matured sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS has not yet gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a bottom up manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder process - though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment. As for your 'and not anarchist' phrase, I do not know what you mean. My view is that bottom-up structures, the absence of top down hierarchy is the democratic form of anarchism (sometimes also called anarcha-feminism or manifests in various forms of social anarchism like the anarcho-queer or the green anarchism movement ...). In my world view anarchism does not mean chaos or violence, but means bottom-up organization. But I know the word is highly overloaded with meaning and prejudice, and I do not know what you mean by it and whether you use it as dirty word (so many people do) or not. > > Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional supra-structures built over this basic norm. Actually I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities. I think any democracy that does not place that at the forefront of its principles is just another form of tyranny and one that does not deserve support. So for me, while important, 1 person 1 vote is secondary to the protection of rights and is not absolute. > > We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening democracy (which are very well established) from those of multistakeholderism. The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize the power among the participants. This is a process that takes time and is to my mind a critical component of democracy. A fundamental concept is the equality of the participants in all of their stakeholder memberships, and I see no other system that gives us a path to that other than the multistakeholder model. > > So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. Because deepening democracy, as I understand your explanation of it, does not include the notion of equality among all participants. And because from a pragmatic point of view, we have a certain amount of commitment from all sides, including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model. > > You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. Here again, we disagree. I think the fact that outreach and capacity building are integral to the multistakehoder model makes it very much the right solution for today. It should evolve in its complexity and maturity and it will eventually morph into the next step on the road to a social just bottom-up democracy with equal access for all in all of their apsects. > The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the democratic public sphere.) > > Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to mega-corporates. I do not think you have shown this. You have argued it from our perspective, but I do not agree that you have shown it in any sot of QED manner. I find that you have a fear and resultant desire to exclude the commercial participants whereas I believe we can't do it without them. I believe their power can be fought in many ways, but keeping them away from the table is not one of them. These days, I find that people's identities and participation are as invested in the companies they work for or believe in (how many people identify themselves by the products they buy - Apple people anyone?) as they are in the governments they are ruled by and the civil society groups that represent their interests or the teams they cheer for and he veer they drink. The various stakeholder groups (and I do not hold to there only being 3) are the manifestations of the many forms of participation that humans engage in. When we bring together a truly multistakeholder group we allow for people to participate fully, being represented, in some sense to some degree, in several of the stakeholder groups. > > Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of public interest. And I give every support to notions of multistakeholder regulation of these multinational entities. I think it is the only way. But this means that the multistakeholder model needs to mature to the point where this can be done in a reliable open, transparent, and enforceable manner. I also do not agree that the polity is fully national. I think many of us are trying to move away from that national mode and some have done so to some extent. I think governments are holding us in these cages, but that too will probably change in time. I think a growing number people all the time are thinking globally, well except for when it comes to futbol teams and the local farmer's market. > This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise of unbridled corporate power even more. I find the old democratic forms to be suspect and inappropriate as they are all controlled at the national level. Some may be fine for determining the various governments' perspective on the issues, but do nothing for the other sides of the question. So these older democratic forms only represent one side of the multistakeholder equation. > > As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world through the Internet. I too support that. And see the multistakeholder model and the regulation by multistakeholder bodies as the only viable solution to the problem. > > Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? > > Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. _All_ borders bother me. > > You said, > > "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. " > > The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things may not be as unfanthomable. That is the point of continual outreach and capacity building in the multistakeholder model. Why is it these discussions remind me so much of the bitter fights in the US radical scene in the 80's?Where the Marxists said they had the way to understand the world while the Feminists said they did and then finally some really clever theoreticians figured out that combing the methods was most useful (of course while we argued among ourselves the free-market boys had eaten our lunch and captured the global mindshare). In today's world we have hopefully even moved beyond the recognition that have those are the two variables in the discussion and have hopefully moved in a multi-theoretical framework. Like the Marxism of the 80's, political economy only focuses on one aspect through one lens, so while useful and critical, it is limited; I believe one needs to take a multi-theoretical approach to both understanding the problems and finding the solutions - which leads me to conclude that a multistakeholder approach is currently the only viable option. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 13:06:35 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:06:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Multistakeholderism is a costume in which voluntary cooperation is dressed up in, unless there's some power to enforce contracts, agreements or resolutions that result. That enforcement would have to be in a court system. There's your government power right there. If the government somewhere can enforce private contracts or multistakeholder resolutions or compacts it apparently has an interest in subsidizing via the court system as well as the system of contract law the private agreements of two or more parties. Presumably, it then has even more solid basis for intervention when the more fundamental interests of equality are present. P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed is the foundation of every single non-democratic form of governance from Plato's "philosopher kings" to aristocrats to dictators, the idea always being that the people are too dumb and therefore need a great person to guide them. The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, that is, they are the best judge of whether laws chafe or embrace their interests, just like they are for shoes on their own feet. The many instances people might try to cite where it seems the people have not risen to the occasion are typically all instances in which it's doubtful whether the opinion of any given person will even be listened to by anybody, so in those kinds of cases it's reasonable for people to shirk the duty of becoming informed on account of avoiding the frustration that nobody listens anyway -- they only listen (if they do at all) to the leaders of the civil society groups hand selected by self-perpetuating bodies to speak for them. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/16/10, parminder wrote: > Avri > > I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. > > "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more > leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the > condemnation of the multistakeholder model " > > > My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and > bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially > in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. > > Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 > person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the > start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional > supra-structures built over this basic norm. > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Aug 16 13:07:42 2010 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:07:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C69705E.1060004@digsys.bg> The multistakeholderism (does this word have German origins? ;) model works only, in a way, when all parties involved have more or less comparable powers, or if you will, influence in the outcome. As it was rightly pointed out, this model does not involve taking decisions. Rather, it involves, what we used to call in the 'socialist era' -- "shared iressponsibility". If you invite to the party 'stakeholders' that have little say in the final decision, or implementation, those parties will only serve as thesillent minority -- they will be "used" in the process to represent 'votes', but will neither have their say heard (or, it will be heard and ignored immediately) nor will they be able to complain lately, because "you participated, right?". I have seen this happen too may times in different environments. There is also another aspect of this model. Human nature is such, that small group of people end up abusing the rest. There is nothing in this model, at least in the 'internet governance' implementations, that prevents abuse form happening. When abuse happens, part of the stakeholders stop trusting the model and go away. Eventually, those who hold the control knobs, apply common sense and things are sort of repaired. If the parties with the knobs are corrupted -- the game ends. Sorry if I sound too pessimistic or critical. :) Daniel ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 13:11:57 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:11:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2936742BA0DE4FEBA7DE62DF8B267909@userPC> Avri, Thanks for your clear articulation of your position. A few questions: 1. what do you mean by a "stakeholder" i.e. who in your conception are a/the stakeholders 2. you mention below that you see stakeholders becoming more representative or at least making efforts to become more representative. Could you give me/us some specific examples and particularly where efforts are being made outside of immediate contact networks i.e. organizational/personal comfort zones 3. Parminder is concerned about the power of mega-corps in the here and now. You seem to be mildly optimistic around this and I would like to hear your explanation not in the misty future but rather more close to home where the oxcart trails are currently being worn in 4. you talk about there being a lack of a global constitutional order, but many point to things like the Land Mine treaty, the International Court in the Hague, the International Treaty on Cultural Diversity etc.etc. as the groundwork for such an international order--all of which have been promulgated and are enforceable (more or less) via nation states. Could you comment on this and why you don't see these as providing at least some direction for an international constitutional order, and why this has to be jettisoned for an as yet completely (conceptually) ill-formed multi-stakeholderism--baby/bathwater. 5. you say "I just believe neither the model nor the participants have matured sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS has not yet gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a bottom up manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder process - though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment." I wonder what evidence you have to indicate that either the model or the paricipants are "maturing" in the direction that you are suggesting. If anything, I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction i.e. as the stakes in IG get higher the processes are becoming less representative/democratic but I wait to be disproven on that. 6. you say "I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities" but I would like to hear/see your evidence that MSism in fact does what you say. My own observation is exactly the opposite. I see deals being struck between various stakeholders in whole range of areas that if they could (and sometimes do) by-pass national governments the results are a significant diminution of people's rights -- particularly in states where there is no broadbased responsible democratic processes--logging in Burma, mining in the DRC, land appropriation in the PRC and so on. 7. you say "The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize the power among the participants. ...I see no other system that gives us a path to that other than the multistakeholder model. " I would like to hear/see your evidence for this. To my mind I see exactly the opposite of this. Powerful "stakeholders" running roughshod over the less powerful (when they are allowed to do so) and almost no effort being made by anyone (except the self-interested and self-serving) to empower anyone other than themselves. 8. you say "we have a certain amount of commitment from all sides, including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model". Again I would like to see your evidence for this particularly in situations where there may be a clear conflict of interests between powerful stakeholders (say governments and the corporates and civil society broadly understood i.e. beyond the usual set of civil society actors and NGO's). As I see things playing out MSism is a useful way of deflecting attention and absorbing and redirecting conflicts and energies and leaving the dis-established without even access to those who nominally speak on their behalf. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:08 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism On 16 Aug 2010, at 01:49, parminder wrote: > > I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in > it. Anytime. I think of the multistakeholder model and the task of preserving and strengthening it, as well as CS's capability to participate fully in it, as one of the most fundamental issues we have before us. I understand that this is my particular view and may not be shared by many. > > "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders > in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of > the multistakeholder model " > > My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and > bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, > especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in > this list. I do not understand this sentence. What democratic form is bypassed in civil society or in Global Policy making. We do not have any sort of constitutional structure whereby a democratic format other than the Multistakeholder modality exist. At least I haven't seen one. Sure, some of us live in countries that have some sort of democratic voting, but unless we are going to leave everything in the hands of the nations states, there is no other democratic form that i see - nor do i see one on the any horizon. So please explain the democratic form we are bypassing. I do see the multistakeholder model as good for actually making IG policy, not just for talking about it. So in this I disagree with Wolfgang: > The key issue of MS is "dialogue" among various groups on a more equal > footing. MS is NOT a political decision making process. I agree if isn't yet, but I believe it can, and I believe it should, be. I just believe neither the model nor the participants have matured sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS has not yet gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a bottom up manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder process - though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment. As for your 'and not anarchist' phrase, I do not know what you mean. My view is that bottom-up structures, the absence of top down hierarchy is the democratic form of anarchism (sometimes also called anarcha-feminism or manifests in various forms of social anarchism like the anarcho-queer or the green anarchism movement ...). In my world view anarchism does not mean chaos or violence, but means bottom-up organization. But I know the word is highly overloaded with meaning and prejudice, and I do not know what you mean by it and whether you use it as dirty word (so many people do) or not. > > Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 > person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only > the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional > supra-structures built over this basic norm. Actually I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities. I think any democracy that does not place that at the forefront of its principles is just another form of tyranny and one that does not deserve support. So for me, while important, 1 person 1 vote is secondary to the protection of rights and is not absolute. > > We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected > one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public > interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of > 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development > Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this > concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to > make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power > between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This > later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening > democracy (which are very well established) from those of > multistakeholderism. The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize the power among the participants. This is a process that takes time and is to my mind a critical component of democracy. A fundamental concept is the equality of the participants in all of their stakeholder memberships, and I see no other system that gives us a path to that other than the multistakeholder model. > > So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching > and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. Because deepening democracy, as I understand your explanation of it, does not include the notion of equality among all participants. And because from a pragmatic point of view, we have a certain amount of commitment from all sides, including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model. > > You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very > certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed > for an 'informed polity'. Here again, we disagree. I think the fact that outreach and capacity building are integral to the multistakehoder model makes it very much the right solution for today. It should evolve in its complexity and maturity and it will eventually morph into the next step on the road to a social just bottom-up democracy with equal access for all in all of their apsects. > The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, > well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an > 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the > Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the > democratic public sphere.) > > Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should > supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and > 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, > as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has > mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to > mega-corporates. I do not think you have shown this. You have argued it from our perspective, but I do not agree that you have shown it in any sot of QED manner. I find that you have a fear and resultant desire to exclude the commercial participants whereas I believe we can't do it without them. I believe their power can be fought in many ways, but keeping them away from the table is not one of them. These days, I find that people's identities and participation are as invested in the companies they work for or believe in (how many people identify themselves by the products they buy - Apple people anyone?) as they are in the governments they are ruled by and the civil society groups that represent their interests or the teams they cheer for and he veer they drink. The various stakeholder groups (and I do not hold to there only being 3) are the manifestations of the many forms of participation that humans engage in. When we bring together a truly multistakeholder group we allow for people to participate fully, being represented, in some sense to some degree, in several of the stakeholder groups. > > Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most > important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity > still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely > unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of > public interest. And I give every support to notions of multistakeholder regulation of these multinational entities. I think it is the only way. But this means that the multistakeholder model needs to mature to the point where this can be done in a reliable open, transparent, and enforceable manner. I also do not agree that the polity is fully national. I think many of us are trying to move away from that national mode and some have done so to some extent. I think governments are holding us in these cages, but that too will probably change in time. I think a growing number people all the time are thinking globally, well except for when it comes to futbol teams and the local farmer's market. > This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at > existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather > than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise > of unbridled corporate power even more. I find the old democratic forms to be suspect and inappropriate as they are all controlled at the national level. Some may be fine for determining the various governments' perspective on the issues, but do nothing for the other sides of the question. So these older democratic forms only represent one side of the multistakeholder equation. > > As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global > Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am > as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates > (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the > possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my > uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world > through the Internet. I too support that. And see the multistakeholder model and the regulation by multistakeholder bodies as the only viable solution to the problem. > > Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? > > Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal > adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. _All_ borders bother me. > > You said, > > "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at > the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss > and made is unfathomable to me. " > > The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or > rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things > may not be as unfanthomable. That is the point of continual outreach and capacity building in the multistakeholder model. Why is it these discussions remind me so much of the bitter fights in the US radical scene in the 80's?Where the Marxists said they had the way to understand the world while the Feminists said they did and then finally some really clever theoreticians figured out that combing the methods was most useful (of course while we argued among ourselves the free-market boys had eaten our lunch and captured the global mindshare). In today's world we have hopefully even moved beyond the recognition that have those are the two variables in the discussion and have hopefully moved in a multi-theoretical framework. Like the Marxism of the 80's, political economy only focuses on one aspect through one lens, so while useful and critical, it is limited; I believe one needs to take a multi-theoretical approach to both understanding the problems and finding the solutions - which leads me to conclude that a multistakeholder approach is currently the only viable option. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 13:18:43 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:18:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: > P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed i do not attack them. i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. > The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. - gay marriage does not fit - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit - turkish immigrants do not fit - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution ... yep, the people always know what does not fit! a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 13:33:49 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:33:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> Message-ID: On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: > >> P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed > > i do not attack them. > i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. But you then proceed to sarcastically attack their wisdom: >> The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, > > yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. > > - gay marriage does not fit > - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit > - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit > - turkish immigrants do not fit > - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution > ... > yep, the people always know what does not fit! Right here is why the principle that one's rights END where another's BEGIN is so important: The "shoe fitting" metaphor applies with force when, as I've said in recent prior posts, ones own rights are "negatively impacted". The correct person to judge if the shoe fits is the one being forced to wear the shoes - such as the Turkish immigrants and other examples you give. As I said before (and it matters not whether the charge is true or not) the description of people or "the people" as dumb or uninformed is the foundation, almost the entire foundation, of all non-democratic or autocratic forms of government. It is also the core of the stereotypes always used to justify slavery, for that matter. Dumb, ignorant, lazy, etc., and "therefore needs a smart master with a whip to be productive." Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. My personal view on "uninformed" allegations is that people rise to the occasion when they are BOTH of the belief that their one vote won't be ignored AND they can find or are given a fair mix of information and a sense of the importance of the issue. Notice that these conditions are not usually met and, more sadly, there's few or no attempts by governments i'm familiar with to meet the conditions. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 13:38:21 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:38:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2936742BA0DE4FEBA7DE62DF8B267909@userPC> References: <2936742BA0DE4FEBA7DE62DF8B267909@userPC> Message-ID: <311CFF94-E0EB-4F39-B278-559BCE544E13@psg.com> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:11, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Thanks for your clear articulation of your position. > you are quite welcome > A few questions: a few? at some point when i have a few hours to spare i may try to answer them all. but thanks for reading my email. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 13:43:42 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:43:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> Message-ID: <1A0B33A5-C6F5-45B0-8738-94F3437A8FD4@psg.com> so now I am accused of advocating slavery? and advocating the whip. interesting argument technique. a. On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:33, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >>> P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed >> >> i do not attack them. >> i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. > > But you then proceed to sarcastically attack their wisdom: > >>> The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, >> >> yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. >> >> - gay marriage does not fit >> - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit >> - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit >> - turkish immigrants do not fit >> - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution >> ... >> yep, the people always know what does not fit! > > Right here is why the principle that one's rights END where another's > BEGIN is so important: The "shoe fitting" metaphor applies with force > when, as I've said in recent prior posts, ones own rights are > "negatively impacted". The correct person to judge if the shoe fits > is the one being forced to wear the shoes - such as the Turkish > immigrants and other examples you give. > > As I said before (and it matters not whether the charge is true or > not) the description of people or "the people" as dumb or uninformed > is the foundation, almost the entire foundation, of all non-democratic > or autocratic forms of government. It is also the core of the > stereotypes always used to justify slavery, for that matter. Dumb, > ignorant, lazy, etc., and "therefore needs a smart master with a whip > to be productive." > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > P.S. My personal view on "uninformed" allegations is that people rise > to the occasion when they are BOTH of the belief that their one vote > won't be ignored AND they can find or are given a fair mix of > information and a sense of the importance of the issue. Notice that > these conditions are not usually met and, more sadly, there's few or > no attempts by governments i'm familiar with to meet the conditions. > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 16 13:56:45 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:56:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Lee, The term "net neutrality" has not been dumped by the courts. The courts told the FCC that they didn't have the regulatory authority to require it, because of one of their own decisions classifying internet as an information service rather than telecom service. That doesn't mean the term is meaningless or undesirable. On the contrary, it tells the FCC that it must either seek new legislation or reclassify broadband if it wants to regulate NN. Google hasn't dumped the _term_ either. It has tried to come up with a practical construction of it that allows network operators to exercise some control over bandwidth mgmt while not discriminating. I agree that it is not easy to translate the wonderful principle of NN into a specific regulatory regime without doing more harm than good. Indeed, IGP said so in its 2007 paper. Open internet doesn't advance the dialogue in any way I can see. It doesn't mean anything, as far as I can tell. But I am happy to receive a coherent definition. It will be interesting to see whether this definition, if subjected to the same "stress tests" as NN, provides a basis for reslving the regulatory disputes. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:24 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means > something...as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its > inventor, Google. > ________________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions > as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so > current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what > constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. > (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). > Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue > IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 16 14:16:04 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:16:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Anytime. I think of the multistakeholder model and the task of > preserving and strengthening it, as well as CS's capability to > participate fully in it, as one of the most fundamental issues we have > before us. I understand that this is my particular view and may not be > shared by many. As I explained in Meissen, MS is at best a transitional form of governance. It starts to disintegrate or moderate the monopoly states have on international policy making, by engaging in a mild form of pluralization. > leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the > condemnation of the multistakeholder model " As you know I don't condemn it, but people who oversell the model produce this kind of reaction, and create an inviting target. > What democratic form is bypassed in civil society or in Global Policy > making. We do not have any sort of constitutional structure whereby a > democratic format other than the Multistakeholder modality exist. You are, as far as I can tell, conceding the case. You are saying that insofar as multistakeholderism has any value here, it is only because it moves us closer to a form of democracy more appropriate to a world beyond nation-states. But let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. > I do see the multistakeholder model as good for actually making IG > policy, not just for talking about it. Here we agree. But the more it becomes a decision making process, the more it becomes apparent that the "constitution" underpinning the MS model, and its engagement with individual rights and balances of powers, is weak. Very weak. Look at ICANN. > As for your 'and not anarchist' phrase, I do not know what you mean. > My view is that bottom-up structures, the absence of top down hierarchy > is the democratic form of anarchism (sometimes also called anarcha- > feminism or manifests in various forms of social anarchism like the > anarcho-queer or the green anarchism movement ...). In my world view > anarchism does not mean chaos or violence, but means bottom-up > organization. But I know the word is highly overloaded with meaning > and prejudice, and I do not know what you mean by it and whether you > use it as dirty word (so many people do) or not. "bottom up" is a vague description of a process, not a system of governance. Bottom up using what processes? Based on what rights? (see below) > Actually I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the > protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may > not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities. I think any > democracy that does not place that at the forefront of its principles > is just another form of tyranny and one that does not deserve support. > So for me, while important, 1 person 1 vote is secondary to the > protection of rights and is not absolute. Here we are in violent agreement. But I call that "liberal democracy" not anarchism or MS. MS is notoriously bad at securing minority rights, as are all bottom up participatory processes (a lynch mob could be considered open, participatory governance, operating with "rough consensus" - obviously lacking the agreement of the lynched person, but probably having well heard, and rejected, his/her entreaties). Anyway, I don't think the gap between you, Parminder and I is that great. I think the more important differences are tactical and strategic, in terms of how to get there. --MM ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Aug 16 14:44:40 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:44:40 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Milton Let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. Wolfgang: Good point, Milton. The MS principle/process/dialogue is still in its infant stage. There is a long road to go. It emerged as the result of political process where governments (and private sector) realized that they can not manage the Internet alone. And it needs to be further enhanced. We moved from A to B but Z is still far away. What would be the alternative to MS? The right of the jungle? Do not forget that the IG definition of the WGIG - which calls for an inclusion of all stakeholders in IG PDP - was a compromise between the Chinese position for "governmental leadership" and the US position for "private sector leadership". The "new beast" which emerged in the WSIS process and neutralized to a certain degree this black and white-conflict was the "civil society" which matured in the WSIS process ands produced a workable policy structures (Pleanry, Content&Theme Group, WGs, Buro etc.) and demonstrated its capacity for policy making with its Civil Society WSIS Declaration from 2003. I invite everzbody to go bacxk to this document and read it and remember how it emerged. The weak point - both in the WSIS process, in the WGIG definition and also in ICANN - is that there are no procedures in place for a reasonable interaction among the stakeholders. Everything remains vague. If ALAC gives "advice" to the ICANN Board, what is the legal nature of such an ALAC advise? Insofar, Daniel makes a good point by articulating the warning, that the @inclusion@ in a dialogue with more powerful partners can be counterproductive and justify one sided power or profit oriented decisions by governments or corporations by refering to the "participation" (and consent?) of civil society in the dialogue. We know this from corrupt trade unions. But this does not speak against trade unions in general and against the usefulnees of dialogue among all involved parties, this calls for better procedures how the dialogue can be translated into policy decisions. To enhance the system there is a need to draft such procedures for interaction. The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Rights and Principles can make a good contribution by propoising a set of rights and duties for governments, private corporations and civil society in Internet Governance. Such a MS IG Declaration could become a reference for cases where one stakeholder tries to misuse the presence of another stakeholder in the dialogue to justify illegitimate actions. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 15:42:16 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:42:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <1A0B33A5-C6F5-45B0-8738-94F3437A8FD4@psg.com> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> <1A0B33A5-C6F5-45B0-8738-94F3437A8FD4@psg.com> Message-ID: On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > > so now I am accused of advocating slavery? > and advocating the whip. > > interesting argument technique. No, this is not personally about you. I put forth a general principle in the beginning about "dumbness" being the basic foundation for all un-democratic forms of government, and after you entered into my subthread, I expanded that to note that dumbness, as well as laziness, is the stereotype used to justify slavery. My points are intended to introduce a note of caution (if I can) in the way people in general are characterized. One would be "dumb" to reiterate the stereotypes of slavery on purpose, so no I do not accuse you of any such intention. See "Regardless of place and time period or the ethnicity of the slaves, societies have imposed certain common stereotypes on slaves - that they were licentious, childlike, lazy, irresponsible, dim-witted, and incapable of freedom [or governance]. http://www.scribd.com/doc/31668177/Origins-and-Nature-of-NewWorld-Slavery > > a. > > > > On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:33, Paul Lehto wrote: > >> On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: >>> >>>> P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed >>> >>> i do not attack them. >>> i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. >> >> But you then proceed to sarcastically attack their wisdom: >> >>>> The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, >>> >>> yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. >>> >>> - gay marriage does not fit >>> - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit >>> - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit >>> - turkish immigrants do not fit >>> - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution >>> ... >>> yep, the people always know what does not fit! >> >> Right here is why the principle that one's rights END where another's >> BEGIN is so important: The "shoe fitting" metaphor applies with force >> when, as I've said in recent prior posts, ones own rights are >> "negatively impacted". The correct person to judge if the shoe fits >> is the one being forced to wear the shoes - such as the Turkish >> immigrants and other examples you give. >> >> As I said before (and it matters not whether the charge is true or >> not) the description of people or "the people" as dumb or uninformed >> is the foundation, almost the entire foundation, of all non-democratic >> or autocratic forms of government. It is also the core of the >> stereotypes always used to justify slavery, for that matter. Dumb, >> ignorant, lazy, etc., and "therefore needs a smart master with a whip >> to be productive." >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> P.S. My personal view on "uninformed" allegations is that people rise >> to the occasion when they are BOTH of the belief that their one vote >> won't be ignored AND they can find or are given a fair mix of >> information and a sense of the importance of the issue. Notice that >> these conditions are not usually met and, more sadly, there's few or >> no attempts by governments i'm familiar with to meet the conditions. >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-2334 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 16 16:41:35 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:41:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4C670D67.1070304 at cavebear.com>, at 14:40:55 on Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Karl Auerbach writes >However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public >internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or >operated by a public entity. What !?! Something is public if people have access to it (without any credentials other than money, if required), irrespective of who owns it. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 16 17:18:59 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:18:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.a d.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100816203159.05ba4540@jefsey.com> Not to be subjective, i.e. legally acceptable "Network neutrality" must be mesurable. So, it can only be a technical notion. http://wikalfa.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A9_du_r%C3%A9seau_-_Network_neutrality (domaine public/public domain). Thank you for your comments. Merci pour vos commentaires. jfc --- La fourniture d'un service de réseau est dite techniquement neutre lorsque tous les systèmes participant au processus de bout en bout peuvent être remplacés au hasard par leurs équivalents techniques de tout autre opérateur sans qu'elle ne soit améliorée. The provision of a network service is said to be technically neutral when every system participating in the end-to-end process can randomly be replaced by its technical equivalent from any other operators without it being enhanced. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Mon Aug 16 17:30:29 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:30:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C69ADF5.408@cavebear.com> Just so that we have something solid to chew on when talking about net neutrality, here are some of the concrete ways in which I see that providers can "engineer" (or "bias") the traffic that flows. This list is only a tiny portion of the ways that providers can "tune" their networks. I'm not trying here to be exhaustive, merely illustrative. My goal here is to suggest that when we talk about net neutrality that we ought to be able to draw clear lines from general principles to concrete things done by providers, and, importantly, vice versa. - In VoIP the choice of codec can have a big impact. And some human languages suffer greater codec degradation than do others. Just as one of my favorite singers' voice was used to tune the MP3 parameters the languages of the US and western Europe tend to have been used when creating the codecs most typically used for VoIP. With those codecs vowel-rich languages tend to work better and those languages with sharp consents tend to suffer because the rise-time/attack of those sounds are frequently chopped or softened. Asian languages tend to suffer. And I've often wondered whether African click languages become incomprehensible, particularly when the provider not only uses a vowel oriented coded but also uses the technique of removing packets that contain mostly silence. - Protocol based routing - this is very often done to segregate VoIP traffic onto paths that are not carrying big (i.e. long serialization time) packets of HTTP and its ilk. And some traffic, particularly backup jobs and the like, are not harmed by being routed via inexpensive, but slow, geosynchronous satellite paths. - Protocol based queue priority - routers are usually filled with queues of packets that are waiting to be sent on an outgoing interface. These queues can get long. And they can overflow. And there are often several queues waiting for a single physical interface. The order in which packets are inserted into queues (FIFO or preference based), the queue that is selected for insertion, the queues that get preference when the interface becomes empty (fair queueing, round-robin, etc), the drop policy (tail drop, random drop, RED, protocol-sensitive drop [e.g. don't drop TCP ACK or FIN packets]) are all among the knobs and dials available to a provider. - Aggregate limits - providers may allow up to a given amount of traffic within a certain time period and then penalize any overrun. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Aug 16 17:38:38 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:38:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] Seeking non-U.S. blogs/articles re: Google/Verizon and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ad01cb3d8b$6449d5a0$2cdd80e0$@com.br> Dear Rebecca, I will try to find some issues besides our comments in Portuguese, here in Brazil. Kind regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 Board Member of ICANN From: Rebecca MacKinnon [mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:03 PM To: governance; oni at eon.law.harvard.edu Initiative Subject: [governance] Seeking non-U.S. blogs/articles re: Google/Verizon and net neutrality Dear friends, I'm trying to get a better sense of how different people in different parts of the world view the Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal. While a couple of lists I'm on have members from around the world who have provided some great insights, I am also hoping to find a broader range of publicly quotable and linkable material published on blogs and news websites around the world. If you have written or recently encountered articles or blog posts (in any language) that you think provide useful insight about the potential long-term global implications of the Google/Verizon proposal - in the event that something akin to what they are proposing were to be implemented in the U.S. and perhaps also in markets - or for that matter about the general significance of both broadband and wireless net neutrality for people in various countries and regions, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share any links you've got. Thanks so much!! Rebecca -- Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 18:12:13 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:12:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: There's a "stress test" called the "void for vagueness" doctrine in common law courts that strikes down statutory wording that is unclear such that "the average person must necessarily guess at its meaning." Counsel considering ways of defending their client's case can almost always find a key phrase and attack it as void for vagueness because literally any term or phrase can be deconstructed with the result that the contours of meaning made to seem unclear and/or incoherent at best. In this context, "public internet" is attacked and accused of meaninglessness. Most recently, the US Supreme Court struck down the term "honest services" in reference to wire fraud, which had the effect of reversing the convictions of Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling. If one considers that the opposite of fraud is honesty, this result is nearly staggering, but it is instead a testament to the power to deconstruct virtually any word or phrase. Whenever void for vagueness doctrine in any form, or meaning-stress-tests are applied, it's a way to kill whatever it is applied to, IF there is the desire to kill it. Similarly, someone else just said today that a "legally" acceptable standard would have to be measurable. This is definitely not true throughout the common law, and I'd be surprised if it were true here. If it happens to be true, wheover passed that statute or regulation insisting on measurability did not wish to have "subjective" standards in the law like "honesty", "that which would deceive a reasonable person," "unfair business practices" and the like. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/16/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: [snip] > Open internet doesn't advance the dialogue in any way I can see. It doesn't > mean anything, as far as I can tell. But I am happy to receive a coherent > definition. It will be interesting to see whether this definition, if > subjected to the same "stress tests" as NN, provides a basis for reslving > the regulatory disputes. > > --MM -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Mon Aug 16 19:36:14 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:36:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> On 08/16/2010 03:12 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > In this context, "public internet" is attacked and accused of > meaninglessness. Let's not go into your description of statutory interpretation. The art of such interpretation is very dependent upon the jurisdictional and factual contexts. But I don't think we need to go there - I have not been saying that the phrase "public internet" is either vague or meaningless. Quite the contrary. I am saying that the phrase is not at all vague or meaningless. I am saying that some of us here seem to want to make the word "public" in that phrase into an empty word so that the phrase "public internet" and the unadorned word "internet" mean the same thing. People are, of course, free to read statements of policy on neutrality on the "public internet" as if those statements apply to the entire internet, public or private. But they ought not to be surprised if someone else, particularly the authors of those statements, choose to use those words so that the qualifiers "public" and "private" actually mean something. And it would not be surprising if those policies are read by others such that the qualifier "public" is recognized as having weight. Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be a policy of very limited scope. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 23:21:57 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:21:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 8/16/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps > closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net > neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be > a policy of very limited scope. Your focus on ownership to the exclusion of other factors is misplaced. IN the last few days, I attended a "county fair" held on private land and yet all kinds of legal rights "followed' me there, I stopped by a privately owned shopping mall and my rights followed me (even free speech rights), and I went blueberry picking on private land with the permission of the owner, who lets anyone pick there for free that wishes to. Even though the fair and the shopping mall are also privately owned land, only in the last case of the blueberry "private" land is the situation akin to what you mis-describe as the "private internet." In fact, it would be NEARER to the truth to call them a "public fair" even though it's "private" land, and a "public shopping mall" even though it's on private land. The fact is, as soon as anyone is invited or tolerated to be on "private' land or property (including a website) a whole new legal regime of rules comes in, and they are "invitees" or "business invitees" in the case of real (land) property and are owed definite legal duties by the owners, regardless of whether they buy anything or not. So long as I'm not breaking through a firewall or hacking in some way, the internet as the typical person experiences it is virtually the same (legally) throughout the "privately" and publicly owned parts. This is sufficiently true that many websites will attempt to alter those rules an obtain waivers of some rights via contractual terms of service, EULAs and the like. But the law is all still "there" in the "private' internet, including the law related to what people can legitimately agree to or not agree to via a contract term or EULA. To cut to the chase, the "public" vs. "private" distinction is only relevant in one important sense. if it is deemed "private", as a matter of mere politics and persuasion the rhetorical deck is stacked in favor of private parties making law via contract and EULA. If the internet is considered "public" then of course only the public makes the law. But even in the "private" sector, government laws structure and control all of contract law, anti-fraud protections, and so on. The FCC may not have been delegated authority over this, but that doesn't mean Congress and parliaments around the world don't have the authority within their jurisdiction - because they do. The FCC only lacks power because the first element it must always prove is that it has had power delegated to it by the Congress. In a nutshell, the real battle is between "legislation to preserve pubilc goods on the internet" vs. "let the market decide, via laissez-faire capitalism, how much public good there ought to be on the internet." Whether or not that's Karl's way of thinking about it (which I doubt) that's really what it boils down to. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Aug 16 23:52:30 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:52:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8E496A26-8848-4BAB-A39D-95BFE9C74847@post.harvard.edu> > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 04:21:54 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:21:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> On 08/16/2010 08:21 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/16/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps >> closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net >> neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be >> a policy of very limited scope. > > Your focus on ownership to the exclusion of other factors is > misplaced. IN the last few days, I attended a "county fair" held on > private land ... I am intrigued by your attempt to equate use of private land by invitation or contract with the conveyance of packets over a privately owned and operated wire and through privately owned and operated routers. I don't find it a compelling analogy. Let's begin with the ultimate private right, the right to refuse. Are you saying that a provider *must* carry your packets? That the carrier must remain in existence, even to its bankruptcy to convey your packets? That would be absurd. And, if it were required, it would mean the speedy end of the internet. Or are you saying that a provider must give non-paying non-customers the same access to its facilities as paying customers? That would seem to be a quick road to provider insolvency. I have routine blocks against certain people reading my privately constructed, privately operated, and privately hosted websites. And I have similar blocks against certain sources of undesired email. If I blocked you you are suggesting that somehow I would be violating denying your rights on the internet. Needless to say, absent some special relationship or contract, neither I nor anyone else has any such duty to you. You seem to feel that just because I may have a website or other service up on the net that you have unfettered rights to access it. That is not true. I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental ("public") operators. Moreover, if you persist and pound on my servers to excess or try to penetrate the security barriers then you could be find that you've stepped into somewhat deep waters. But that's websites. Let's get back to the carriage of packets over the net: ISP's tend to have peering and transit contracts with one another to which you have neither privity nor third party beneficiary rights with regard to those agreements. At best you have an agreement with your local first hop provider/ISP, nothing more. You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage of IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as if those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the cases in which private shopping malls were equated to public streets for purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. If that's what you are attempting, I find the analogy flat. A provider that doesn't carry your packets with equity or even at all, is not stopping you from publishing your material. There are almost as many web hosting providers as there are Starbucks coffee stores - so if one can't publish your stuff there's always a willing and able provider coming around on the merry-go-round. Perhaps if there were some sort of collusion among all the providers there might possibly be something actionable. But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. You can pound your keyboard against the cold iron of the perception of those who are spending the money that they own and thus control the assets they paid for. I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you could possibly achieve is some sort of non-discriminatory common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different classes of service would come at different prices. That regime is not going to arise out of some local "common law" principle (particularly as most of the world isn't based on English "common law" at all). It might arise at a national level via national legislation, but as we well know the net is international and supranational and that national law in that context is nothing more than "mere domestic law". --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 17 04:57:03 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:57:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:21:54AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wro > You seem to feel that just because I may have a website or other > service up on the net that you have unfettered rights to access it. > That is not true. I can limit or even revoke your access at any > time without notice. So can every other operators, except perhaps > certain governmental ("public") operators. Feelings aside and without judging which way it should be, that is not true in many countries. In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected clients in Finland or many (most?) other European countries (probably EU level legislation, though I haven't checked). Rather, you must have a valid reason (formally there's just a list of invalid reasons, but it's so long that in practice you must show a valid one). > You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and > from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those > third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. Actually, yes I can - ok, not premier but equal in some sense: if they discriminate against my packets they must have a valid reason in many countries, USA to the contrary. (Although there are *some* restrictions even in the US against some types of discrimination, like race- or gender-based, if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if any such would apply here.) > I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage > of IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as > if those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the > cases in which private shopping malls were equated to public streets > for purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. Don't know about him, but the restrictions I mentioned are rather considered "fair business practices". > You can pound your keyboard against the cold iron of the perception > of those who are spending the money that they own and thus control > the assets they paid for. There are lots of limitations on what you can do with your property, especially if you want to do business with it. > I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you > could possibly achieve is some sort of non-discriminatory > common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that > different classes of service would come at different prices. Yes, one well-accepted reason for discrimination is money. > That regime is not going to arise out of some local "common law" > principle (particularly as most of the world isn't based on English > "common law" at all). It might arise at a national level via > national legislation, but as we well know the net is international > and supranational and that national law in that context is nothing > more than "mere domestic law". That is a very good point - even though we've seen various attempts to enforce national jurisdiction on companies doing business across borders, sometimes with success, and while technically those only apply within national borders, they have some tendency to seep across, via international agreements and even simply because it's easier to stick to one set of procedures everywhere. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 17 05:22:24 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:52:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> Karl, > But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. This goes back to definitions, that we started to attempt. One can call any traffic carried over IP as Internet, and to me you seem to think so. (Please correct me if I am wrong). Verizon- Google uses the term non-Internet for IP traffic which is carried through entirely private agreements, and public Internet for IP traffic which is subject to certain levels/ kinds of universal access, transmission etc - which we may call as bound by a 'public contract', or by some degree of publicness. I agree with this separation of meanings between non-Internet and the Internet as a public space/ entity. However, as argued earlier, degrees or manners of publicness characterizing a public space/ entity is different in different contexts - like public parks, public roads, public schools, public utility, public universities etc. Not all - for instance, in many cases public utilities - are owned or operated by a public agency. Such different uses of the term 'public' does not take away its meaning. There can be private enclaves within a public space, or the latter can be connecting private spaces. For instance, a private conversation in a public park and a road connecting houses respectively. In the case of the Internet, similarly, the publicness of the Internet does not overrule the privateness of an email carried by it, and also Internet of course does connect private networks, including those using IP. In this context, like those who wrote the Verizon-Google agreement, I am completely able to understand the meaning of Internet as a 'public Internet'. However, the agreement makes distinction between the levels of (or nature of) publicness of the wired Internet and wireless and I do not agree with this distinction. You yourself speak of, what i see as, a public Internet in your email. >I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you could possibly achieve is some sort of >non-discriminatory common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different classes of service would >come at different prices. Such a common carriage network has traditionally been called as a public network as in '/public switched telephone network', even when operated by private operators. / The real problem is with a narrow way of looking at the meaning of public, which simply does not hold in the present discussion, and is IMHO only succeeding in making the discussion on public interest regulation of the Internet even more confusing . Quoting from one of your earlier emails >However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public internet" to describe only that portion of the net >that is owned or operated by a public entity. Parminder On Tuesday 17 August 2010 01:51 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/16/2010 08:21 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> On 8/16/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>> Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps >>> closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net >>> neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be >>> a policy of very limited scope. >> >> Your focus on ownership to the exclusion of other factors is >> misplaced. IN the last few days, I attended a "county fair" held on >> private land ... > > I am intrigued by your attempt to equate use of private land by > invitation or contract with the conveyance of packets over a privately > owned and operated wire and through privately owned and operated routers. > > I don't find it a compelling analogy. > > Let's begin with the ultimate private right, the right to refuse. > > Are you saying that a provider *must* carry your packets? That the > carrier must remain in existence, even to its bankruptcy to convey > your packets? That would be absurd. And, if it were required, it > would mean the speedy end of the internet. > > Or are you saying that a provider must give non-paying non-customers > the same access to its facilities as paying customers? That would > seem to be a quick road to provider insolvency. > > I have routine blocks against certain people reading my privately > constructed, privately operated, and privately hosted websites. And I > have similar blocks against certain sources of undesired email. If I > blocked you you are suggesting that somehow I would be violating > denying your rights on the internet. Needless to say, absent some > special relationship or contract, neither I nor anyone else has any > such duty to you. > > You seem to feel that just because I may have a website or other > service up on the net that you have unfettered rights to access it. > That is not true. I can limit or even revoke your access at any time > without notice. So can every other operators, except perhaps certain > governmental ("public") operators. Moreover, if you persist and pound > on my servers to excess or try to penetrate the security barriers then > you could be find that you've stepped into somewhat deep waters. > > But that's websites. Let's get back to the carriage of packets over > the net: > > ISP's tend to have peering and transit contracts with one another to > which you have neither privity nor third party beneficiary rights with > regard to those agreements. > > At best you have an agreement with your local first hop provider/ISP, > nothing more. > > You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and > from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those > third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. > > I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage of > IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as if > those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the cases in > which private shopping malls were equated to public streets for > purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. > > If that's what you are attempting, I find the analogy flat. A > provider that doesn't carry your packets with equity or even at all, > is not stopping you from publishing your material. There are almost > as many web hosting providers as there are Starbucks coffee stores - > so if one can't publish your stuff there's always a willing and able > provider coming around on the merry-go-round. Perhaps if there were > some sort of collusion among all the providers there might possibly be > something actionable. > > But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the > phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. You can pound your > keyboard against the cold iron of the perception of those who are > spending the money that they own and thus control the assets they paid > for. > > I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you > could possibly achieve is some sort of non-discriminatory > common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that > different classes of service would come at different prices. > > That regime is not going to arise out of some local "common law" > principle (particularly as most of the world isn't based on English > "common law" at all). It might arise at a national level via national > legislation, but as we well know the net is international and > supranational and that national law in that context is nothing more > than "mere domestic law". > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 06:08:07 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:08:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Feelings aside and without judging which way it should be, > that is not true in many countries. > In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* > have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected > clients in Finland I had not heard about that in Finland. But is it really as you suggest it is? Let's use the Finish railway system as test case. Does the Finish railway require riders to pay a fare? In other words, can someone walk up and demand unpaid carriage as a matter of right? And I notice that on the Finnish rail there several classes of fares, including a business class at 1.5x the standard fare. Can one demand business class carriage without paying the additional fare? The point of this is to suggest, as you suggested, that "not paying money" seems to be accepted as a reason to discriminate in Finland (as it seems to be in many other places.) Why might the carriage of packets over privately owned and operated network links and routers be any different? We somehow get the idea that the internet is free. Google, for example, is not free. It is charging a bundle (I know, because my company pays part of that bundle) for advertising, thus causing the well known pass-through of costs by advertisers onto consumers via increased prices. >> You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and >> from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those >> third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. > > Actually, yes I can - ok, not premier but equal in some sense: > if they discriminate against my packets they must have a valid > reason in many countries, USA to the contrary. > (Although there are *some* restrictions even in the US against > some types of discrimination, like race- or gender-based, > if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if any such would apply here.) US law may not be quite what you think it is. Yes we do have very strong rules against many, perhaps most, kinds of discrimination by governmental bodies. However, the rules against discrimination are typically rather less strong when it comes to discrimination by private actors. (The laws in that regard are rather complex in terms of the source of the authority to impose the laws and also in their limitations vis-a-vis things like our first amendment rights of speech and religion.) >> I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage >> of IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as >> if those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the >> cases in which private shopping malls were equated to public streets >> for purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. > > Don't know about him, but the restrictions I mentioned are > rather considered "fair business practices". It is generally considered "fair" to allow denial of service to those who do not pay. I see, for example, that the Finnish postal service does require payment to carry a letter; it would not be surprising if they chose to give lesser service, or no service, to an unpaid letter. Yes, the incremental cost of carrying an internet packet is orders of magnitude smaller than carrying a paper letter. (Although the initial capital expense to build the carriage system may be rather larger for internet paths than for postal paths.) But in neither case is the cost zero. And the costs do cumulate to numbers that are substantial enough that they can't easily be dismissed into some general notion of overhead. >> You can pound your keyboard against the cold iron of the perception >> of those who are spending the money that they own and thus control >> the assets they paid for. > > There are lots of limitations on what you can do with your > property, especially if you want to do business with it. I agree. But those limitations rarely ever require that the private actor give free services. That does not mean that there are no cases where social demands do require free services. Even here in the US there are a few such cases where free service must be granted. For example, because of our awful medical system, emergency hospitals are required to accept any and all comers without concern for payment until all emergency beds are occupied. But that kind of policy tends to cause unwanted downstream effects - For example the private hospital operators - in my local community the operator is the Dominican branch of the Catholic church - has reduced the number of emergency beds so that they reach the capacity limit before they loose to much money. That means that in my somewhat isolated coastal town we often have insufficient emergency room capacity. The point of this is that no matter how much we would like otherwise, private actors are going to flow like quicksilver away from uncompensated costs. That flow may be overt and obvious like my hospital emergency room example, but it might be more subtle - as when someone simply does not consider building network capacity in the first place because they don't want to be stuck giving it away for free. With all of this discussion I may have given the impression that I'm opposed to net neutrality. Quite the contrary, I believe that net operators should not discriminate on grounds of content, source, or destination. I do, however know that different kinds of content require different handling - conversational voice being the most common example. And I also know that people won't build an adequate network service if they suspect that it could turn into an uncompensated cost hole. (Some folks think that VoIP works just fine on today's net, and that thus we can get away with an undifferentiated best-effort internet. Yes, VoIP does work today - but it does only by the fortuitous circumstance that we haven't yet filled all the pathways with competing traffic. Thus, for the moment, there is sufficient excess capacity to keep VoIP packet jitter within [barely] tolerable bounds. But that situation is unlikely to remain as providers try to squeeze more return out of their investments.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 06:08:03 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:08:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just a few general points to chime in : On *Net Neutrality* : one of the outcomes I took from the discussions in the 2010 EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the question could be reframed around : "*limitations to traffic management*". It combines the recognition that there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for instance to ensure QoS for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be limitations to it, in order to preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination, transparency, enabling innovation, etc... On the notion of *Public Internet* : in many respects, the global Internet could be qualified as a "*common pool resource*" as defined in the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list). Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international arrangements that could give the Internet a *legal status analogous to what is used for international canals, waterways or straits* : right of free harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments) towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring. Comments welcome. Best Bertrand On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions > as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, > it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public > Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term > non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to > know what is Internet before we pursue IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 06:19:09 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:19:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6A621D.6060307@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 02:22 AM, parminder wrote: >> I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you >> could possibly achieve is some sort of >non-discriminatory >> common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different >> classes of service would >come at different prices. > Such a common carriage network has traditionally been called as a public > network as in '/public switched telephone network', even when operated > by private operators. / As Milton M. would point out (I'm sure he is lurking around the edges of this conversation) those private companies in the US that operate as "public utilities" frequently (and perhaps always) took that route, or allowed it to be imposed onto them, as part of a substantial quid-pro-quo that includes things like anti-trust immunity and access to public powers like eminent domain acquisition of lands or easements.) By-the-way, I have no objection to the notion that network packet contents ought to be treated as inviolable by providers. (However, I still use end-to-end encryption for most of my network packets. ;-) > The real problem is with a narrow way of looking at the meaning of > public, which simply does not hold in the present discussion, and is > IMHO only succeeding in making the discussion on public interest > regulation of the Internet even more confusing . I'm not trying to confuse things, I'm merely trying to point out that when someone writing a policy, particularly an author who is commercial, that the word "public" when prefixed to the word "internet" is a signal to count fingers and to make sure that some slight-of-hand isn't being perpetrated. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 17 06:22:39 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:22:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> References: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wro > On 08/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > >In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* > >have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected > >clients in Finland > > I had not heard about that in Finland. But is it really as you > suggest it is? Note the word "arbitrarily". I didn't mean to suggest there are no valid reasons for discrimination, let alone that money wouldn't be one. > Let's use the Finish railway system as test case. > The point of this is to suggest, as you suggested, that "not paying > money" seems to be accepted as a reason to discriminate in Finland > (as it seems to be in many other places.) Exactly. And I did not argue it shouldn't be - just pointed out that your statement >>> I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. >>> So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental >>> ("public") operators. is an overstatement. > >Actually, yes I can - ok, not premier but equal in some sense: > >if they discriminate against my packets they must have a valid > >reason in many countries, USA to the contrary. > >(Although there are *some* restrictions even in the US against > >some types of discrimination, like race- or gender-based, > >if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if any such would apply here.) > > US law may not be quite what you think it is. Yes we do have very > strong rules against many, perhaps most, kinds of discrimination by > governmental bodies. However, the rules against discrimination are > typically rather less strong when it comes to discrimination by > private actors. Without claiming much knowledge about US law, in Finland (and most of Europe) rules against discrimination are fairly strong in the case of private-owned businesses as well (as opposed to individuals). -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Tue Aug 17 07:18:16 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:18:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD4735@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi Bertrand Is there a report from the France-Netherlands initiative, and plan for moving forwards that you could share with us? Many thanks, Lisa From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: 17 August 2010 11:08 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions Just a few general points to chime in : On Net Neutrality : one of the outcomes I took from the discussions in the 2010 EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the question could be reframed around : "limitations to traffic management". It combines the recognition that there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for instance to ensure QoS for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be limitations to it, in order to preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination, transparency, enabling innovation, etc... On the notion of Public Internet : in many respects, the global Internet could be qualified as a "common pool resource" as defined in the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list). Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international arrangements that could give the Internet a legal status analogous to what is used for international canals, waterways or straits : right of free harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments) towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring. Comments welcome. Best Bertrand On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 17 07:24:45 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:24:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4C6A46A2.30900 at cavebear.com>, at 01:21:54 on Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Karl Auerbach writes >Let's begin with the ultimate private right, the right to refuse. > >Are you saying that a provider *must* carry your packets? On one hand, isn't that what the much desired "Common Carrier" decrees? On the other hand, they only need to carry a random customer's packets for the duration of the period that they wish to be regarded as a public network for the purposes (and protection) of their local regulator. >That the carrier must remain in existence, even to its bankruptcy to >convey your packets? They are conveying packets for a fee. If they've messed up their commercial proposition such that they go broke, it's no different to any other bankruptcy. >Or are you saying that a provider must give non-paying non-customers >the same access to its facilities as paying customers? That would seem >to be a quick road to provider insolvency. No, the criterion is that the only "credential" required by a customer is money (rather than, for example, being an employee of a particular organisation). But the customer has to provide the money, obviously... -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 17 07:36:57 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:36:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4C6A54D0.6060302 at itforchange.net>, at 14:52:24 on Tue, 17 Aug 2010, parminder writes > public schools In the USA a "public school" is one run by the local council, usually free of charge at the point of delivery. In the UK a "public school" is one of the (often more upmarket) privately-run schools[3][4. But the reason they are "public" is because they will accept anyone as a student, if long as they can pay the fees[1][2]. You don't have to have some *other* specialised credential, the most obvious at the time they were founded: having a clergyman, or the local Lord of the Manor, as a parent. [1] Although there are normally some scholarships too, but let's not get distracted. [2] And if oversubscribed they may impose some sort of proficiency test, but that's very different from the "son of preacherman" test. [3] Generally run as a charity. [4] Those in my first paragraph being called "state schools". -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 08:19:10 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:19:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? Message-ID: Dear all, Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring discussion among us. As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards the expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding other, like multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or multistakeholder approach. I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the use of "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general theory, or a movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of the discussion on the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to understand better what people feel is behind the use of an "ism" termination. Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect : - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil society, government and business. - this obscures diversity within each of those groups - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy way to brand processes as being democratic That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the "siloed" process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else regarding the use of an "ism" termination ? In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is an ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely transitory (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them "automobiles") As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be sufficient*. The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of Internet Governance that I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the multistakeholder development and application of shared regimes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet". Here, Multi-stakeholder stands for "by governments, civil society and the private sector, in their respective roles". As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to define the desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the "respective roles" beyond the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation of the famous Article 35 or the Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this discussion about multistakeholderism is all about ? Not about which category of stakeholders is best, more legitimate, or more powerful, but how to ensure full participation, rules of engagement, representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent processes. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 08:42:45 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:42:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Everybody is paying for internet access (or the person whose computer they are using has paid), so I don't see the usefulness of the discussion about not paying. The best analogy to fit the *general* facts here that I can think of is this one: Everybody is paying highway taxes. However, large commercial vehicles (in the USA) often have signs saying "This vehicle pays $1,592 [or similar amount] in annual road and highway taxes." I am certain I don't pay anywhere near that amount in highway taxes, the commercial truckers pay much more.. Does this mean the commercial truck can travel faster than me if it's made a deal like Google/Verizon, and get other unequal treatment and preferences when it comes to traffic laws? The net neutrality debate has a core component that asserts, to continue the metaphor above, that people and commercial outfits should "pay their way" but they cannot pay for discriminatory privileges such as a different speed limit. A bar or tavern operator is free to set prices at 25 Euros or 25 USD per drink, but can't charge a higher price to net neutrality advocates compared to commercial interests. Nor may the tavern staff INTENTIONALLY act to slow down service to one class in order to benefit another. They might sometimes do so in fact, we could suppose, on account of their hopes for tips and such, but if pressed on the matter they'd just say they were "slammed" and claim it was all time impossibility or at worst negligence. The Google Verizon style contract is one of the highest forms of intentional behavior there can be, since it is certain to be so highly-lawyered and thought through. --------------- Also, in the USA the laws that reach the private sector do so most strongly in the areas regarding equality. Slavery could never have been abolished if the 13th amendment didn't reach the private sector, segregated private clubs would still be legal, and workplace discrimination against employees (including taverns) the government would be powerless to legislate on. But clearly those laws all exist and are well settled law. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/17/10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) > wro >> On 08/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> >In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* >> >have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected >> >clients in Finland >> >> I had not heard about that in Finland. But is it really as you >> suggest it is? > > Note the word "arbitrarily". > I didn't mean to suggest there are no valid reasons for > discrimination, let alone that money wouldn't be one. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 17 09:10:56 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:40:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Bertrand, On Tuesday 17 August 2010 05:49 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring > discussion among us. > > As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards > the expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding > other, like multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or > multistakeholder approach. > > I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the > use of "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general > theory, or a movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of > the discussion on the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to > understand better what people feel is behind the use of an "ism" > termination. My main problem with the ism is as follows. 'Multistakeholder participation' has for long been a valid concept in democratic practice, especially in terms of gathering perspectives around specialized issues ( and generally not so much in deciding larger/ broader/ overall public interest issues where 'public interest' actors are mostly engaged)), and works clearly within, and in subordination to, traditional (representative) democratic institution and political processes. Multistakeholderism, however, seems to be a term which has taken hold largely at the global policy level, where there is admittedly a huge political vacuum, and whereby, and Avri expressly says it, multistakeholderism is considered not as just a process leading to, or inputting into, policy making, but as a process of policy making itself (or, as I like to put, of 'not making policy'). In that sense, it seeks to do away with any need for moving towards democratic political processes at the global level as well (and this has manifested at the global IG scene) which are based on equality of people and of groups of people within constitutional frameworks. What is clearly different *in any such democratic global process/ institution* vis a vis multistakeholderism is that in the former* only natural human beings and their natural collectives are recognized entities with rights and equality, and legal entities like corporates are not accepted to be at the same level. MSism however tends to do that. This is the single biggest issue with MSism,* and to go any further with this discussion, it is my sincere opinion, that we need to focus on this single issue. You solve this issue for me, I will accept MSism :). However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, which for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE central issue. This especially so because when we look at the global scene the strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who seen to further benefit the most from MSism. Thanks Parminder > > Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect : > - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude > 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil > society, government and business. > - this obscures diversity within each of those groups > - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy > way to brand processes as being democratic > > That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the > "siloed" process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else > regarding the use of an "ism" termination ? > > In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is > an ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or > multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been > struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely > transitory (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them > "automobiles") > > As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be > sufficient*. The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of > Internet Governance that I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the > multistakeholder development and application of shared regimes that > shape the evolution and use of the Internet". Here, Multi-stakeholder > stands for "by governments, civil society and the private sector, in > their respective roles". > > As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to > define the desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the > "respective roles" beyond the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation > of the famous Article 35 or the Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this > discussion about multistakeholderism is all about ? Not about which > category of stakeholders is best, more legitimate, or more powerful, > but how to ensure full participation, rules of engagement, > representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent processes. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 17 09:12:19 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:12:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6A8AB3.8020708@cafonso.ca> Not really boxing depending on how you consider the three groupings. If civil society is restricted to formal organizations, and the same for business, then it boxes. Civil society is organized in ways far beyond the formal non-profits (I mean registered under the laws and tax regulations of some country), in fora such as the IGF no one checks if a certain CS constituency is "valid" and formalized, and I imagine business can participate in similar ways -- and let us concede that the academics are civil society too, Charlie Brown (this is another thread of intellectual infighting :)). --c.a. On 08/17/2010 09:19 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring discussion > among us. > > As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards the > expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding other, like > multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or multistakeholder > approach. > > I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the use of > "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general theory, or a > movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of the discussion on > the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to understand better what people > feel is behind the use of an "ism" termination. > > Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect : > - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude > 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil > society, government and business. > - this obscures diversity within each of those groups > - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy > way to brand processes as being democratic > > That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the "siloed" > process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else regarding the > use of an "ism" termination ? > > In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is an > ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or > multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been > struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely transitory > (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them "automobiles") > > As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be sufficient*. > The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of Internet Governance that > I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the multistakeholder development and > application of shared regimes that shape the evolution and use of the > Internet". Here, Multi-stakeholder stands for "by governments, civil > society and the private sector, in their respective roles". > > As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to define the > desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the "respective roles" beyond > the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation of the famous Article 35 or the > Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this discussion about multistakeholderism is > all about ? Not about which category of stakeholders is best, more > legitimate, or more powerful, but how to ensure full participation, rules of > engagement, representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent > processes. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 17 10:53:00 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:53:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C69ADF5.408@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69ADF5.408@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62C163@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Great job on this, Karl! I tried to add to the pool in a previous post but I feared some of it would have been too deeply 'techie'. So I resorted to cover this with a label: "telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in business-like practical ways". Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 4:30 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions Just so that we have something solid to chew on when talking about net neutrality, here are some of the concrete ways in which I see that providers can "engineer" (or "bias") the traffic that flows. This list is only a tiny portion of the ways that providers can "tune" their networks. I'm not trying here to be exhaustive, merely illustrative. My goal here is to suggest that when we talk about net neutrality that we ought to be able to draw clear lines from general principles to concrete things done by providers, and, importantly, vice versa. - In VoIP the choice of codec can have a big impact. And some human languages suffer greater codec degradation than do others. Just as one of my favorite singers' voice was used to tune the MP3 parameters the languages of the US and western Europe tend to have been used when creating the codecs most typically used for VoIP. With those codecs vowel-rich languages tend to work better and those languages with sharp consents tend to suffer because the rise-time/attack of those sounds are frequently chopped or softened. Asian languages tend to suffer. And I've often wondered whether African click languages become incomprehensible, particularly when the provider not only uses a vowel oriented coded but also uses the technique of removing packets that contain mostly silence. - Protocol based routing - this is very often done to segregate VoIP traffic onto paths that are not carrying big (i.e. long serialization time) packets of HTTP and its ilk. And some traffic, particularly backup jobs and the like, are not harmed by being routed via inexpensive, but slow, geosynchronous satellite paths. - Protocol based queue priority - routers are usually filled with queues of packets that are waiting to be sent on an outgoing interface. These queues can get long. And they can overflow. And there are often several queues waiting for a single physical interface. The order in which packets are inserted into queues (FIFO or preference based), the queue that is selected for insertion, the queues that get preference when the interface becomes empty (fair queueing, round-robin, etc), the drop policy (tail drop, random drop, RED, protocol-sensitive drop [e.g. don't drop TCP ACK or FIN packets]) are all among the knobs and dials available to a provider. - Aggregate limits - providers may allow up to a given amount of traffic within a certain time period and then penalize any overrun. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Tue Aug 17 12:05:29 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:05:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD475D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi all Just a quick note in relation to Wolfgang's final point below about the Internet Rights and Principles coalition... We're currently finalizing the first draft of a "Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet". The aim is to translate human rights standards to apply to the Internet, so the focus of the main section of the Charter is on the rights of individuals in relation to the Internet (whether online, connected or not currently using it). In the second section of the Charter we've started to break down overarching rights down into specific principles, and also to define who has responsibility for upholding them. This is relevant to Wolfgang's suggestion about creating guidelines for different stakeholders/actors/entities. We haven't however started doing this for participation in internet governance, although that is included as a right in the first section of the Charter in the current version. It would be great if people are interested in working on that as we move forwards. Might the APC/UNECE/CoE guidelines on participation serve as a starting point for this work? Just a small aside related to the language we're using: We've had quite a lot of discussion on the IRP list about how we refer to different stakeholders and who actually has "rights". In the coalition we're working firmly within the human rights framework which means that we're talking about the human rights of individuals. We're therefore not trying to explore or define legal rights for any other entities (e.g. states, companies), but rather focusing on their roles and responsibilities in upholding and advancing human rights. We'll be consulting on the Charter during the dynamic coalition meeting at the IGF - it would be great to have people's participation in that. All the best, Lisa ___________________________________________________________ Lisa Horner Head of Research & Policy Global Partners and Associates 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 LisaH at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 16 August 2010 19:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; IGC; Avri Doria Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Milton Let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. Wolfgang: Good point, Milton. The MS principle/process/dialogue is still in its infant stage. There is a long road to go. It emerged as the result of political process where governments (and private sector) realized that they can not manage the Internet alone. And it needs to be further enhanced. We moved from A to B but Z is still far away. What would be the alternative to MS? The right of the jungle? Do not forget that the IG definition of the WGIG - which calls for an inclusion of all stakeholders in IG PDP - was a compromise between the Chinese position for "governmental leadership" and the US position for "private sector leadership". The "new beast" which emerged in the WSIS process and neutralized to a certain degree this black and white-conflict was the "civil society" which matured in the WSIS process ands produced a workable policy structures (Pleanry, Content&Theme Group, WGs, Buro etc.) and demonstrated its capacity for policy making with its Civil Society WSIS Declaration from 2003. I invite everzbody to go bacxk to this document and read it and remember how it emerged. The weak point - both in the WSIS process, in the WGIG definition and also in ICANN - is that there are no procedures in place for a reasonable interaction among the stakeholders. Everything remains vague. If ALAC gives "advice" to the ICANN Board, what is the legal nature of such an ALAC advise? Insofar, Daniel makes a good point by articulating the warning, that the @inclusion@ in a dialogue with more powerful partners can be counterproductive and justify one sided power or profit oriented decisions by governments or corporations by refering to the "participation" (and consent?) of civil society in the dialogue. We know this from corrupt trade unions. But this does not speak against trade unions in general and against the usefulnees of dialogue among all involved parties, this calls for better procedures how the dialogue can be translated into policy decisions. To enhance the system there is a need to draft such procedures for interaction. The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Rights and Principles can make a good contribution by propoising a set of rights and duties for governments, private corporations and civil society in Internet Governance. Such a MS IG Declaration could become a reference for cases where one stakeholder tries to misuse the presence of another stakeholder in the dialogue to justify illegitimate actions. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Aug 17 12:07:01 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:07:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:10, parminder wrote: > However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, which for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE central issue. This especially so because when we look at the global scene the strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who seen to further benefit the most from MSism. I do believe that I discussed this issue. Perhaps not completely of sufficinet adequately For me what is significant about these organization is that they represent aspects of individual's participation. Just a government represent people in their identity as citizens, civil society represents people in their aspect as activists and those concerned with the myriad cil society concerns. And commercial organizations represent people as employees and stockholders (and sometimes even te interests of the customers). And this is just dealing with the the tripartite. Internet Technical organizations represent people in their identity as technical stewards of the internet. Consumer organizations represent people as consumers of the Internet. Netizen groups ..... a. Ps. in answer to Michael G's question. As many statekeholder groups as can organize and define themselves.____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 12:43:43 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:43:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> Message-ID: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> In this scenario Avri (and others) who then represents the "public interest" that is the interest of, dare we say, the global commons, the interest of us all over and above the narrower specific interests of those with specific "stakes" in the outcome. As I understand what you are saying Avri, the reconciliation of the interests of the various stakeholders takes place in some sort of marketplace where coalitions are built etc.etc. I have a lot of questions concerning that but haven't we/aren't we suffering from a near (once and future) global economic collapse precisely because that "hidden hand" which is meant to ensure appropriately mutually beneficial outcomes from the marketplace you are pointing to in fact turned out to be a rather bullying fist appropriated for the benefit of the greedy few at the expense of the blameless many. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:07 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:10, parminder wrote: > However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism > generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, > which for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE > central issue. This especially so because when we look at the global > scene the strongest power shifts taking place today are towards > mega-corps, who seen to further benefit the most from MSism. I do believe that I discussed this issue. Perhaps not completely of sufficinet adequately For me what is significant about these organization is that they represent aspects of individual's participation. Just a government represent people in their identity as citizens, civil society represents people in their aspect as activists and those concerned with the myriad cil society concerns. And commercial organizations represent people as employees and stockholders (and sometimes even te interests of the customers). And this is just dealing with the the tripartite. Internet Technical organizations represent people in their identity as technical stewards of the internet. Consumer organizations represent people as consumers of the Internet. Netizen groups ..... a. Ps. in answer to Michael G's question. As many statekeholder groups as can organize and define themselves.____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 13:11:28 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:11:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> Message-ID: On 8/17/10, Avri Doria wrote: > For me what is significant about these organization is that they represent > aspects of individual's participation. Just a government represent people in > their identity as citizens, civil society represents people in their aspect > as activists and those concerned with the myriad cil society concerns. And > commercial organizations represent people as employees and stockholders (and > sometimes even te interests of the customers). The same word "represent" is used above to denote freely elected representatives in a demecracy as well as some [nebulous] relationship whereby commercial organizations like corporations "represent" *employees* and stockholders. The use of the word "represent" in the context of corporations or commercial organizations is just wrong. Are we to believe that employees in unionized workplaces are represented by the corporation, and not the union? Just who thinks their boss has all of their best interests at heart? In addition, there certainly isn't any corporation that I'm a customer of that represents me... The only way the authority to represent is transferred is in free and fair elections. Those may exist with governments but certainly don't with corporations relative to their employees or even their managers, in most cases. Nor do corporations typically have shareholder approval for their actions. At bottom, a corporation speaks only for its Board of Directors and/or top executive officers, but even then it doesn't "represent" even these folks because the duty of the corporation is solely to make a legal profit, not to look out for even the CEO per se. The officers and directors have legal duties to the corporation including a duty of loyalty. Is the corporation "representing" that loyalty duty? A different word would seem absolutely required as between 'representing' in the democracy sense and in the corporate context. I also do not understand how (assuming the above tripartite division were valid) those persons who join civil society or corporations get two or more representations while regular voters who don't join a particular civil society group or work at a corporation get only one representation. If one person / one vote is changed to one interest / one vote, we can expect that vested interests will win every time. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 14:26:56 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:26:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6AD470.9000706@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 06:10 AM, parminder wrote: > ...This especially so because when we look at the global scene the > strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who > seen to further benefit the most from MSism. I agree. My own feelings about stakeholderism are deeply and strongly negative. See http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Aug 17 14:35:08 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:35:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992232C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >On Net Neutrality : one of the outcomes I took from the discussions in the 2010 >EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the question could be reframed >around : "limitations to traffic management". It combines the recognition that >there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for instance to ensure QoS >for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be limitations to it, in order to >preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination, transparency, enabling >innovation, etc... Actually some of the most important aspects of NN had nothing to do with "traffic management" but rather with blocking/discrimination against content, applications or services based on their origin or owner. The NN movement got its first real impetus in the US from the Madison River case, in which a telco providing internet access sought to disable competing VoIP services. The idea that an Internet access provider would, like a cable TV system, assert "editorial control" over what content, services and applications we could connect to struck many of us as undesirable, and even inimical to the entire foundation of internetworking. It is an attempt to make us captive audiences for their own (higher-priced) services. This selectivity would not be a problem if the market for internet access were highly competitive; anyone who discriminated or assembled a bundle of services that was undesirable could simply be abandoned and we could move to another supplier, who would have every incentive to meet our demand for an unrestricted service. But the linkage of internet access to massive fixed investments in physical infrastructure means that there are likely to be one or two providers of broadband access - unless one unbundles the physical facility - which in turn requires the provision of nondiscriminatory access to the underlying physical facility, so the problem is just pushed back. (And of course, in many countries the state, with its blocking/filtering policies, is the worst discriminator against content, services and applications, let's not forget that.) "Traffic management" came into the picture later. (Basically after an AT&T exec started making noises about how he wanted content/services providing web-based video to pay him for expanding the pipes.) The traffic management issue became conflated with the content, services, applications blocking because people feared that traffic prioritization practices could be used in a discriminatory manner to favor certain suppliers (again, think of cable TV). Here there would not be actual blocking of services, but the improved performance associated with special traffic management arrangements could still constitute a devastating form of discrimination. Again, it would put the network operator in the inappropriate position of deciding what content, services and applications we have access to based on their business arrangements. The odd thing about this debate is that it is of course perfectly possible now for some service providers and organizations to buy more bandwidth than others. And there is absolutely nothing wrong that. If I pay $X for bandwidth N and someone else pays $2X for bandwidth 2N, fine. Indeed, any network marketplace that doesn't allow that is going to be dysfunctional. The difference, however, is that the price for bandwidth is uniform for all - so if I can afford $2X or $4x, I can get 2N or 4N bandwidth, whether or not the network operator likes me or believes my service is good. The NN issue arises because, as long as network operators have market power (and they do), they might choose to sell Yahoo 4N or 16N levels of performance and refuse to sell me the same amount, even if I am perfectly capable of paying for it. If we prohibit that kind of activity, it is a feasible and productive approach to NN. This debate is often messed up, however, because there are still extreme egalitarians (or, to put it less charitably economic ignoramuses) running around who think it's unfair for there to be any differences in resource allocation based on ability to pay, and there are even some who think it's an evil capitalist conspiracy to make anyone have to pay for anything. (I no longer waste time with debates like that, I had my share on the sidewalks of college campuses in the 1970s. ;-) --MM On the notion of Public Internet : in many respects, the global Internet could be qualified as a "common pool resource" as defined in the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list). Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international arrangements that could give the Internet a legal status analogous to what is used for international canals, waterways or straits : right of free harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments) towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring. Comments welcome. Best Bertrand On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Aug 17 15:26:55 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:26:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD475D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD475D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: <1282073215.1752.368.camel@anriette-laptop> Thanks very much for mentioning the Code of Good Practice, Lisa. I will post an update. Until then people can view the Code at http://www.intgovcode.org I also attach a PDF version. Anriette On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:05 +0100, Lisa Hor ner wrote: > Hi all > > Just a quick note in relation to Wolfgang's final point below about > the Internet Rights and Principles coalition... > > We're currently finalizing the first draft of a "Charter of Human > Rights and Principles for the Internet". The aim is to translate > human rights standards to apply to the Internet, so the focus of the > main section of the Charter is on the rights of individuals in > relation to the Internet (whether online, connected or not currently > using it). > > In the second section of the Charter we've started to break down > overarching rights down into specific principles, and also to define > who has responsibility for upholding them. This is relevant to > Wolfgang's suggestion about creating guidelines for different > stakeholders/actors/entities. > > We haven't however started doing this for participation in internet > governance, although that is included as a right in the first section > of the Charter in the current version. It would be great if people > are interested in working on that as we move forwards. Might the > APC/UNECE/CoE guidelines on participation serve as a starting point > for this work? > > Just a small aside related to the language we're using: We've had > quite a lot of discussion on the IRP list about how we refer to > different stakeholders and who actually has "rights". In the > coalition we're working firmly within the human rights framework which > means that we're talking about the human rights of individuals. We're > therefore not trying to explore or define legal rights for any other > entities (e.g. states, companies), but rather focusing on their roles > and responsibilities in upholding and advancing human rights. > > We'll be consulting on the Charter during the dynamic coalition > meeting at the IGF - it would be great to have people's participation > in that. > > All the best, > Lisa > ___________________________________________________________ > Lisa Horner > Head of Research & Policy Global Partners and Associates > 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK > Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 > LisaH at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 16 August 2010 19:45 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; IGC; Avri Doria > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > Milton > Let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. > > Wolfgang: > Good point, Milton. The MS principle/process/dialogue is still in its infant stage. There is a long road to go. It emerged as the result of political process where governments (and private sector) realized that they can not manage the Internet alone. And it needs to be further enhanced. We moved from A to B but Z is still far away. What would be the alternative to MS? The right of the jungle? > > Do not forget that the IG definition of the WGIG - which calls for an inclusion of all stakeholders in IG PDP - was a compromise between the Chinese position for "governmental leadership" and the US position for "private sector leadership". The "new beast" which emerged in the WSIS process and neutralized to a certain degree this black and white-conflict was the "civil society" which matured in the WSIS process ands produced a workable policy structures (Pleanry, Content&Theme Group, WGs, Buro etc.) and demonstrated its capacity for policy making with its Civil Society WSIS Declaration from 2003. I invite everzbody to go bacxk to this document and read it and remember how it emerged. > > The weak point - both in the WSIS process, in the WGIG definition and also in ICANN - is that there are no procedures in place for a reasonable interaction among the stakeholders. Everything remains vague. If ALAC gives "advice" to the ICANN Board, what is the legal nature of such an ALAC advise? > > Insofar, Daniel makes a good point by articulating the warning, that the @inclusion@ in a dialogue with more powerful partners can be counterproductive and justify one sided power or profit oriented decisions by governments or corporations by refering to the "participation" (and consent?) of civil society in the dialogue. We know this from corrupt trade unions. But this does not speak against trade unions in general and against the usefulnees of dialogue among all involved parties, this calls for better procedures how the dialogue can be translated into policy decisions. > > To enhance the system there is a need to draft such procedures for interaction. The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Rights and Principles can make a good contribution by propoising a set of rights and duties for governments, private corporations and civil society in Internet Governance. Such a MS IG Declaration could become a reference for cases where one stakeholder tries to misuse the presence of another stakeholder in the dialogue to justify illegitimate actions. > > Wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ anriette esterhuysen - executive director association for progressive communications p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109 anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692 http://www.apc.org APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: COGP_IG_Version_1.1_June2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217310 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 15:53:43 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 201