[governance] IGF relevance?

[Louis Pouzin (well)]

Hi Fouad, Lee, Parminder,

Let's imagine for a minute a new topic, dubbed "road neutrality".
It would cover:
- keeping all roads in adequate conditions for all offered traffic,
- defining driving rules,
- managing agents and systems assigned to traffic regulation,
- controlling cargo legality, and
- insuring its delivery just in time.

Would that be a good cause, specially in developing countries ?
But doesn't it look like NN ?

Trying to get some influence needs first to identify the power centers in a
position to make (tolerate, allow, drive) changes. For networks there are
legislators, operators, content providers, ISPs, and to some extent the
media and the users.

Vertical integration of operator, content provider and ISP roles is loaded
with risks of unfair competition. Then it's none of a specific network
issue, commerce legislation can handle that.

Content inspection, however questionable it may be, should be dealt with at
national  level, normally defined by legislators.

A solid bone of contention is financing network infrastructures. Why would
competing operators chip in and let dominant content providers reap the
profits ? This is a typical trade issue, raised mostly between major
international stakeholders. Should discrete negotiations fail, it may land
on WTO's table.

A small to medium developing country cannot muster much weight against
dominant transborder operators and content providers. Nor can she set the
international regulatory scene. What's left is the national or regional
level, which may become exemplary for other countries to follow.

The old game still prevails, clay pot against iron pot.
- - -


On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 3:45 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Hi Lee
>
>
> On Saturday 16 April 2011 04:10 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> Fouad,
>
> The good or bad news, depending upon one perspective, is that this issue will not really be 'settled' for years and years.
>
>
> Bad news, because, as Lessig said,  'architecture is policy' and if the
> architecture is already made and well developed by default, there wont be
> much that policy can do long after. Hence the urgency in the matter from a
> developing country point of view.
>
> So there is plenty of time for other nations to consider and weigh their interests, and views.  Especially since the moral imperative underlying the discussion, fairness in treating others, is I believe commonly held in all cultures since ancient times.
>
> That is, if there is a ferry which may take you across a river, everyone knows the ferry must let you board, if you pay the fee.
>
> Only problem is determining the moral equivalent on the Internet is subject to more interpretations.
>
> Whereas in ancient times, if the ferryman would not let you on board, even though you were prepared to pay just like anyone else, you would beat him.  People, and ferry operators, figured out thousands of years ago - it is best if anyone can get on.
>
> Giving ATT or anyone else the same kind of beat down for a violation of the Internet equivalent - is a bit harder.
>
>  A very important question to ask. Where does the coercive power to ensure
> public interest based compliance lie. It used to lie with the nation states
> but with globalization, global capital escapes these controls by playing one
> state against the other, and developed country states against developing
> country ones. Whereby, even if by the logic of domestic pulbic interest NN
> is clearly important, this imperative has to be wieghed against the huge
> global economic advantage and benefits that developed country based global
> digital corporates bring for these countries. Developing country
> governments, on the other hand, have little political leverage over these
> global corporates. Try to regulate them in public interest, and they will
> abandon the country in a matter of days.
>
> This is 'the' key political issue in a globalised world, more so for the
> inherently global phenomenon of the Internet. And the only adequate response
> to it that comes to my mind is working towards stronger (democratic) global
> political institutions. Starting with framing global norms for NN would be a
> good thing to do in this regard.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:33 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF relevance?
>
> That is my feeling too. Everything seems to stop with EU and US
> centric NN discussions and debates. The rest of the world can sit
> quietly and wait while everything is okay on that side and the rules
> are set for the rest to follow.
>
> NN seems to be a no go area or no discuss issue for the developing
> world and thats where the primary questions arises to how can
> developing regions take on this debate because the neutrality of the
> network is as important for them and their sustainability too.
>
> The developed perspective usually is that what they say is what is
> authority over any other discussion and I cannot buy that.
>
> -- FoO
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110416/142056d5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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