[governance] Outcome, Messages etc.

[Mawaki Chango]

Karl,

I think the suggestion in the second part of your message need to be
taken up. As you may remember, I myself have recently suggested in
another discussion thread that NN may boil down to terms and provision
of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd
encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of
requirements you may think of. However, I will urge you (in fact for
me, this is a prerequisite for the discussion to proceed in a
meaningful manner) to provide for each one of the technical
characteristics in technical terms and acronyms an explaining
formulation for a broader social consumption and discourse. That would
further enable the discussion you're calling for, and minimize the
otherwise justified criticism that these processes are taken over by
technical experts (when it's not by big corporations) at the expense
of democracy.

I see IGC as an autonomous body, not merely an appendix to IGF or
something. If we can have a substantive discussion and agree on the
basic level characteristics for a public internet service, nothing
prevents us from releasing a position paper/statement and promoting it
in this NN debate.

Mawaki


On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t