[governance] Outcome, Messages etc.

Sat Aug 21 09:41:08 EDT 2010

>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.

I agree, Mawaki.

Just to set the ball rolling, I would suggest two simple points.

Any telecom provider will provide the public Internet

1. at the same cost (or less) than any other IP based service provided by it

2. at the same (or better) QoS (quality of service) as any other IP 
service provided by it (though universally agreed differentiations of 
QoS between 'types' of applications - like video, voice etc may be 
allowed). VPNs can be exempt from this conditions.

Point 2, which I think will be more contested, is similar to the 
principal 3 of Norway's NN agreement which is enclosed.

    Principle 3
    Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free
    of discrimination
    with regard to type of application, service or content or based on
    sender or
    receiver address.
    ? This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual
    data streams that
    use the basic Internet service.
    ? But it does not mean that the principle precludes traffic
    management efforts on an
    operator's own network to block activities that harm the network,
    comply with orders
    from the authorities, ensure the quality of service for specific
    applications that require
    this, deal with special situations of temporary network overload or
    prioritise traffic on
    an individual user's connection according to the user's wishes.

(ends)

In fact why should we, as the IGC, not adopt a simplified version of the 
Norway's NN agreement and present it at the IGF, expressing concern 
about the creeping encroachment on NN principle vis a vis the mobile 
Internet. Does anyone fnd anything wrong with the Norway's NN agreement.

Parminder

On Saturday 21 August 2010 06:25 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 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
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100821/18d3e286/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: norway NN guidelines
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44740 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100821/18d3e286/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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