[governance] Outcome, Messages etc.

[Karl Auerbach]

On 08/21/2010 12:10 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:

> I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG
> policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call
> themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of
> the IGF  (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that
> IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does).

Much of what I see happening here is debate on process.

Might I suggest a few initiatives on substantive matters - it would be 
hard for others to dismiss those.

For example, we recognize that the net is a collection of rather 
independent carriers.  Today there is no easy way for an average user 
(or his/her agent or local provider) to go out to obtain assurances (not 
guarantees) of end-to-end service.   I've long thought that one thing we 
need on the net is some sort of clearing-house function to which a 
person or entity that needs some sort of end-to-end service can go to 
arrange such things.  This would be an entirely non-technical function. 
  I am assuming, perhaps too hopefully, that if such an organ were 
created that it would evolve, much as the coffee houses of London 
evolved centuries ago into things like Lloyds of London.  Such an 
effort, if properly couched, could also be a nice olive branch to groups 
(such as NANOG) that tend to look askance at internet governance.

Another thing - We've talked a lot over the last few days about net 
neutrality.

It is my sense that when the fur stops flying that we will be in a 
regime in which there is some sort of non-discriminatory base carriage 
of packets and tiers of higher grade (and higher cost) service.

But nobody has set down what those service levels might be, either in 
terms of what a local, edge ISP would have to deliver, or what might be 
required end-to-end across a sequence of providers.

For example, a base level service might have characteristics such as:

    - No discrimination on packet size, content, or IP address source or 
destination.

    - Best effort, with routers limited to certain defined queue 
policies, such as weighted or unweighted fair queueing, tail drop, 
various forms of RED.

    - Delay not to exceed N milliseconds (on some sort of average) with 
jitter not to exceed M milliseconds (with some defined algorithm to 
express jitter).

   - Path MTU of at least 1500 bytes.

   etc etc.

A higher level (which might be included in the baseline) would further 
constrain delay and/or jitter to better support VoIP.

There could be defined levels of non-neutrality, such as the preference 
for DNS packets that I mentioned the other day.

If these service levels and definitions were created consumers (and 
larger entities) could engage in real discussions with providers about 
what is actually being provided.  And providers would understand what 
they need to deliver.

The ITU has some work, G.1050, to characterize internet packet carriage 
behaviour.  Although I have some problems with some of the burst 
algorithms used in that specification, I believe that G.1050  perhaps 
could be used as a baseline for discussion.

Nobody else in the constellation of internet governance actors is doing 
this sort of thing - yet is seems to me that that kind of work would be 
rather useful to users and providers.  Were the IGF to pick up the baton 
and run with it the other "stakeholders" would have no grounds to 
complain and could only try to catch up.

Moreover, I believe that by focusing for a while on more technical 
matters that the emotional differences would be reduced it would be 
relatively easy to make visible progress.

	--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