[governance] net neutrality

[Adam Peake]

I think you could make general principles, and at 
the level of principles what you have in Norway 
and Japan is not so different from the FCC's 
policy principles. Problem comes when you try to 
enforce those principles. I think that's what we 
were trying to say with this comment in the 
conclusion "it is very hard to make broad, 
sweeping concepts actionable or enforceable as 
rules".  And as another matter I think wireless 
networks are different from wired, and that's a 
massive problem given that developing countries 
will likely be relying on wireless.

Adam



>Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed through 
>it, but plan to read it fully later.
>
>However, I am unable to agree to the conclusions 
>that it is difficult to say what is a NN 
>violation or not, and a one-size-fit-all set of 
>guidelines are difficult, and in any case any ex 
>ante NN regulation is extremely diffcult.
>
>Can you suggest why for instance Norway's clear 
>NN guidelines cannot work, and work universally?
>(see 
><http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf>http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf 
>)
>
>It all really depends on what our basic point of 
>departure is. If it is human rights, or rights 
>of all people on the Internet, then that becomes 
>basic and most important and profit-models etc 
>come much later. NN has to be seen from such a 
>huan rights angle. Anyone can argue to any 
>length how ensuring say democratic rights is an 
>expensive model, or media rights interfere with 
>business models and the such. Precisely to avoid 
>such problem we have the concept of rights.
>
>So, for many of us net neutrality, or net 
>equality, is a basic right. We start from here. 
>Companies have to adjust their business models 
>to it, and regulators have to ensure that this 
>right is ensured.
>
>Now for practical translation of this right. I 
>dont see how it is difficult to understand or 
>enforce a simple regulation that 'there will be 
>no content provider specific pay-for-priority on 
>the public Internet' and if any such practices 
>are found there will be heavy penalty and 
>eventual cancellation of license. This however 
>does exclude public interest communication like 
>emergency services etc about which guidelines 
>will be issued separately.
>
>The above is a very specific and clear NN 
>guideline. I will like to hear why is it not 
>enforceable.
>
>Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai offers 
>is a different thing. Here they do not use the 
>public internet but private IP based channels. 
>More elaborate NN guidelines will also cover 
>issues about how public Internet and such 
>private IP based networks will co-exist in a 
>manner that larger pulbic interest and people's 
>basic rights are ensured.
>
>Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even 
>FCC has come up with a NN framework for wired 
>internet and the framework covers all issues. In 
>fact the guidelines and the individual 
>commissioner's comments make very interesting 
>reading. I have no confusion about NN when I 
>read them. Things are crystal  clear, as they 
>must be because they are real enforcable laws of 
>the land. The only problem is that FCC left out 
>wireless networks from NN ambit and that is the 
>key issue we need to discuss.
>
>In this context it may be considered rather 
>surprising that the main civil society group in 
>IG arena continues to think that NN  issue is 
>too complex to be able to be discussed or 
>applied with any degree of coherence. I am not a 
>techie, but I can clearly understand it - to the 
>extent that any 'real life' issue can ever be 
>understood'.
>
>On the notion that competitive markets will take 
>care of the NN problem - let me repeat, India's 
>mobile market is perhaps the world's most 
>competitive, and there is a large scale NN 
>violation going on there right now.
>
>parminder
>
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>Some background 
>><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093> 
>>(self serving plug to a paper written by some 
>>colleagues and me, "A Comparison of Network 
>>Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and 
>>the European Union".)
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today.
>>>
>>>I do not think we, as a premier global CS 
>>>group, can afford to *not* do something about 
>>>this issue. So many times a discussion on NN 
>>>on this list has run into this wall - it is a 
>>>very complex issues  with many sides to it'. 
>>>So ??? I dont think this is a good enough 
>>>reason for abdication. One often hears excuses 
>>>like, with voice and video domination the 
>>>internet today NN is a meaningless concept. 
>>>Not so at all. We can have specific provisions 
>>>whereby specific applications can have 
>>>different treatments while being 
>>>content-provider neutral, this latter being 
>>>the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have 
>>>oftne been mentioned in discussions here 
>>>earlier. These guidelines allow space to 
>>>manage voice and vedio applications related 
>>>issues. IS there any reason why Norway's 
>>>guidelines cannot be used globally, and why 
>>>should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I 
>>>fear that if soon enough there is not a basic 
>>>global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway 
>>>like countries may not be able to preserve NN, 
>>>such is the globalness of the Internet and its 
>>>basic architectural principles.
>>>
>>>What I am arguing for is that we should not 
>>>only propose NN as a plenary topic and 
>>>absolutely put our foot down that it must be 
>>>accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find 
>>>the whole exercise meaningless and may not 
>>>even want to participate.... I mean the kind 
>>>of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>  The end of the net as we know it
>>>
>>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
>>>
>>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that 
>>>don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a 
>>>disastrous end to net neutrality
>>>
>>>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC 
>>>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest 
>>>episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, 
>>>plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your 
>>>laptop©–s speakers, you©–re left staring at 
>>>the whirring, circular icon as the video 
>>>buffers and buffers and buffers...
>>>
>>>That©–s odd. Not only have you got a new 
>>>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but 
>>>you were watching a Full HD video on Sky 
>>>Player just moments ago. There©–s nothing 
>>>wrong with your connection; it must be 
>>>iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if 
>>>anyone else is having problems streaming 
>>>Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on 
>>>your screen leaves you looking more startled 
>>>than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©–t 
>>>supported on your broadband service. Click 
>>>here to visit our social-networking partner, 
>>>Facebook.©—
>>>
>>>    Net neutrality? We don©–t have it today
>>>
>>>The free, unrestricted internet as we know it 
>>>is under threat. Britain©–s leading ISPs are 
>>>attempting to construct a two-tier internet, 
>>>where websites and services that are willing 
>>>to pay are thrust into the ©¯fast lane©—, 
>>>while those that don©–t are left fighting for 
>>>scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. 
>>>They©–re not so much ripping up the cherished 
>>>notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol 
>>>over the pieces and lighting the match. The 
>>>only question is: can they get away with it?
>>>
>>>*No such thing as net neutrality*
>>>
>>>It©–s worth pointing out that the concept of 
>>>net neutrality °© ISPs treating different 
>>>types of internet traffic or content equally 
>>>°© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net 
>>>neutrality? We don©–t have it today,©— argues 
>>>Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy 
>>>and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©–s second 
>>>biggest ISP.
>>>
>>>©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated 
>>>network at all levels, with huge levels of 
>>>widespread discrimination of traffic types. 
>>>[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low 
>>>speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy 
>>>less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy 
>>>shaped.
>>>©¯So the suggestion that °© ‘oh dear, it is 
>>>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered 
>>>internet in the future'... well, let©–s get 
>>>real, we have a very multifaceted and 
>>>multitiered internet today,©— Heaney said.
>>>
>>>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be 
>>>©¯unthinkable©— to return to an internet where 
>>>every packet of data was given equal weight. 
>>>©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in 
>>>which all data, all the bits and the packets 
>>>were treated in the same way as they passed 
>>>through the network,©— said Simon Milner, 
>>>BT©–s director of group industry policy. 
>>>©¯That was an internet that wasn©–t about the 
>>>internet that we have today: it wasn©–t about 
>>>speech, it wasn©–t about video, and it 
>>>certainly wasn©–t about television.
>>>
>>>©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists 
>>>realised that applications would grab as much 
>>>bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some 
>>>tools were needed to make this network work 
>>>more effectively, and that©–s why traffic 
>>>management techniques and guaranteed quality 
>>>of service were developed in the 1990s, and 
>>>then deep-packet inspection came along roughly 
>>>ten years ago,©— he added. ©¯These techniques 
>>>and equipment are essential for the 
>>>development of the internet we see today.©—
>>>
>>>It©–s interesting to note that some smaller 
>>>(and, yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen 
>>>Internet don©–t employ any traffic shaping 
>>>across their network, and Zen has won the /PC 
>>>Pro/ Best Broadband ISP award 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/> 
>>>for the past seven years.
>>>
>>>Even today©–s traffic management methods can 
>>>cause huge problems for certain websites and 
>>>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common 
>>>victim of ISPs©– traffic management policies, 
>>>often being deprioritised to a snail©–s pace 
>>>during peak hours. While the intended target 
>>>may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent 
>>>clients to download illicit copies of the 
>>>latest movie releases, legitimate applications 
>>>can also fall victim to such blunderbuss 
>>>filtering.
>>>
>>>©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide 
>>>ranging,©— said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director 
>>>of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP 
>>>service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely 
>>>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that 
>>>were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, 
>>>all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer 
>>>[which used to run on P2P software] or Skype. 
>>>So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic 
>>>from a technical perspective, knowing that 
>>>Skype actually doesn©–t eat up much bandwidth 
>>>at all, why should it be deprioritised because 
>>>it©–s peer-to-peer?©—
>>>
>>>    Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt
>>>    more vividly than on the mobile internet
>>>
>>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic 
>>>management been felt more vividly than on the 
>>>mobile internet. Websites and services blocked 
>>>at the whim of the network, video so 
>>>compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda 
>>>propaganda tape, and varying charges for 
>>>different types of data are already 
>>>commonplace.
>>>
>>>Skype is outlawed by a number of British 
>>>mobile networks fearful of losing phone call 
>>>revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching 
>>>the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and 
>>>almost all networks outlaw tethering a mobile 
>>>phone to a laptop or tablet on standard 
>>>©¯unlimited data©— contracts.
>>>
>>>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open 
>>>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for 
>>>fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the 
>>>mobile market, think if that is how you want 
>>>your internet and your devices to work in the 
>>>future, because that©–s where things are 
>>>leading.©—
>>>
>>>*Video blockers*
>>>
>>>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely 
>>>resisted the more drastic blocking measures 
>>>chosen by the mobile operators. But if 
>>>there©–s one area in which ISPs are gagging to 
>>>rip up what©–s left of the cherished concept 
>>>of net neutrality, it©–s video.
>>>
>>>Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer 
>>>to become the largest single category of 
>>>internet traffic, according to Cisco©–s Visual 
>>>Networking Index. It©–s the chief reason why 
>>>the amount of data used by the average 
>>>internet connection has shot up by 31% over 
>>>the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a 
>>>month.
>>>
>>>Internet TV 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070>
>>>
>>>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a 
>>>major headache for ISPs and broadcasters 
>>>alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter 
>>>traffic management policies to make sure 
>>>networks don©–t collapse under the weight of 
>>>video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, 
>>>broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay 
>>>content delivery networks (CDNs) such as 
>>>Akamai millions of pounds every year to 
>>>distribute their video across the network and 
>>>closer to the consumer; this helps avoid 
>>>bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands 
>>>of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at 
>>>the same time.
>>>
>>>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and 
>>>get video broadcasters to pay them °© instead 
>>>of the CDNs °© for guaranteed bandwidth. So 
>>>if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee 
>>>that TalkTalk customers can watch 
>>>uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had 
>>>better be willing to pay for the privilege. A 
>>>senior executive at a major broadcaster told 
>>>/PC Pro/ that his company has already been 
>>>approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut 
>>>such a deal.
>>>
>>>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into 
>>>the ©¯fast lane©—; those who don©–t will be 
>>>left to fight their way through the regular 
>>>internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can 
>>>watch a video, perhaps even one you©–ve paid 
>>>for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of 
>>>your connection or the amount of network 
>>>congestion, but whether the broadcaster has 
>>>paid your ISP for a prioritised stream.
>>>
>>>©¯We absolutely could see situations in which 
>>>some content or application providers might 
>>>want to pay BT for a quality of service above 
>>>best efforts,©— admitted BT©–s Simon Milner at 
>>>a recent Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the 
>>>kind of thing that we©–d have to explain in 
>>>our traffic management policies, and indeed 
>>>we©–d do so, and then if somebody decided, 
>>>‘well, actually I don©–t want to have that 
>>>kind of service©–, they would be free to go 
>>>elsewhere.©—
>>>
>>>    We absolutely could see situations in which some content or
>>>    application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service
>>>    above best efforts
>>>
>>>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same 
>>>forum whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut 
>>>off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour 
>>>of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign 
>>>a big enough cheque, TalkTalk©–s Andrew Heaney 
>>>replied: ©¯We©–d do a deal, and we©–d look at 
>>>YouTube and we©–d look at BBC and we should 
>>>have freedom to sign whatever deal works.©—
>>>
>>>That©–s the country©–s two biggest ISPs °© 
>>>with more than eight million broadband 
>>>households between them °© openly admitting 
>>>they©–d either cut off or effectively cripple 
>>>video streams from an internet
>>>broadcaster if it wasn©–t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
>>>
>>>Understandably, many of the leading 
>>>broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The founding 
>>>principle of the internet is that everyone °© 
>>>from individuals to global companies °© has 
>>>equal access,©— wrote the BBC©–s director of 
>>>future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in 
>>>a recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since 
>>>the beginning, the internet has been 
>>>‘neutral©–, and everyone has been treated the 
>>>same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes 
>>>allow broadband providers to effectively pick 
>>>and choose what you see first and fastest.©—
>>>
>>>ITV also opposes broadband providers being 
>>>allowed to shut out certain sites or services. 
>>>©¯We strongly believe that traffic throttling 
>>>shouldn©–t be conducted on the basis of 
>>>content provider; throttling access to content 
>>>from a particular company or institution,©— 
>>>the broadcaster said in a recent submission to 
>>>regulator Ofcom©–s consultation on net 
>>>neutrality.
>>>
>>>Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a 
>>>broadcaster and one of the country©–s leading 
>>>ISPs, and a company that could naturally 
>>>benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters 
>>>°© raised no such objection in its submission 
>>>to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should be 
>>>relied upon to provide the necessary consumer 
>>>safeguards,©— Sky argued.
>>>
>>>Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially 
>>>run from a small office above a pizzeria 
>>>before Google weighed in with its $1.65 
>>>billion takeover °© have got off the ground if 
>>>its three founders had been forced to pay ISPs 
>>>across the globe to ensure its videos could be 
>>>watched smoothly? It seems unlikely.
>>>
>>>*Walled-garden web*
>>>
>>>It isn©–t only high-bandwidth video sites that 
>>>could potentially be blocked by ISPs. 
>>>Virtually any type of site could find itself 
>>>barred if one of its rivals has signed an 
>>>exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the web 
>>>to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of 
>>>the late 1990s.
>>>
>>>Stop sign 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073>
>>>
>>>This isn©–t journalistic scaremongering: the 
>>>prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked 
>>>by ISPs is already being debated by the 
>>>Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year 
>>>contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months my 
>>>daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door 
>>>and says ‘father, I can©–t access Facebook any 
>>>more©–,©— hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of 
>>>international ICT policy at the Department for 
>>>Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I say 
>>>‘Why?©–. She says ‘It©–s quite obvious, I have 
>>>gone to the site and I have found that 
>>>TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don©–t 
>>>take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©–t pay 
>>>them the money, but YouTube has, so I have 
>>>gone to YouTube©–: Minister, is that 
>>>acceptable? That is the sort of question we 
>>>face.©—
>>>
>>>*Where©–s the regulator?*
>>>
>>>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes 
>>>to say ©¯yes©—, think about the prospect of 
>>>ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and 
>>>leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining 
>>>bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net 
>>>neutrality earlier this year, with spiky 
>>>contributions from ISPs and broadcasters 
>>>alike, but it appears to be coming down on the 
>>>side of the broadband providers.
>>>
>>>©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion 
>>>document [on net neutrality] that we see the 
>>>real economic merits to the idea of allowing a 
>>>two-sided market to emerge,©— said Alex 
>>>Blowers, international director at Ofcom.
>>>
>>>©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, 
>>>where it seems to us that the consumer 
>>>expectation will be a service that©–s of a 
>>>reasonably consistent quality, that allows you 
>>>to actually sit down at the beginning of a 
>>>film and watch it to the end without constant 
>>>problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©— 
>>>he said. Taking that argument to its logical 
>>>conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse 
>>>to pay the ISPs©– bounty will be subject to 
>>>stuttering quality.
>>>
>>>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be 
>>>tougher. ©¯We are concerned that Ofcom isn©–t 
>>>currently taking a firm stance in relation to 
>>>throttling,©— ITV said in its submission to 
>>>the regulator. The BBC also said it has 
>>>©¯concerns about the increasing potential 
>>>incentives for discriminatory behaviour by 
>>>network operators, which risks undermining the 
>>>internet©–s character, and ultimately 
>>>resulting in consumer harm©—.
>>>
>>>Ofcom©–s Blowers argues regulation would be 
>>>premature as ©¯there is very little evidence©— 
>>>that ©¯the big beasts of the content 
>>>application and services world are coming 
>>>together and doing deals with big beasts of 
>>>the network and ISP world©—.
>>>
>>>The regulator also places great faith in the 
>>>power of competition: the theory that 
>>>broadband subscribers would simply jump ship 
>>>to another ISP if their provider started doing 
>>>beastly things °© for example, cutting off 
>>>services such as the iPlayer. It©–s a theory 
>>>echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started 
>>>blocking access to certain news sites, you 
>>>could be sure within about 23 minutes it would 
>>>be up on a blog and we©–d be chastised for it, 
>>>quite rightly too,©— said TalkTalk©–s Heaney.
>>>
>>>    First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute
>>>    the content, services and applications they want
>>>
>>>Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where 
>>>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as 
>>>part of the same deal as TV, telephone or 
>>>mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to 
>>>another is rarely simple. Not to mention the 
>>>18-month or two-year contracts broadband 
>>>customers are frequently chained to. As the 
>>>BBC pointed out in its submission to the 
>>>regulator, ©¯Ofcom©–s 2009 research showed 
>>>that a quarter of households found it 
>>>difficult to switch broadband and bundled 
>>>services©—, with the ©¯perceived hassle of the 
>>>switching process©— and ©¯the threat of 
>>>additional charges©— dissuading potential 
>>>switchers.
>>>
>>>©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a 
>>>contract, that©–s that,©— argued the Open 
>>>Rights Group©–s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make 
>>>your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole 
>>>point of the internet is you make your choice, 
>>>you don©–t like it, you change your mind.©—
>>>
>>>The best hope of maintaining the status quo of 
>>>a free and open internet may lie with the EU 
>>>(although even its determination is wavering). 
>>>The EU©–s 2009 framework requires national 
>>>regulators such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the 
>>>ability of end users to access and distribute 
>>>information or run applications and services 
>>>of their choice©— and that ISPs are 
>>>transparent about any traffic management.
>>>
>>>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting 
>>>favoured partners in the ©¯fast lane©— and 
>>>crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power 
>>>to set ©¯minimum quality of service 
>>>requirements©— °© forcing ISPs to reserve a 
>>>set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic 
>>>management doesn©–t hobble those sites that 
>>>can©–t afford to pay.
>>>
>>>It©–s a concept enthusiastically backed by the 
>>>BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, 
>>>which doesn©–t have to use this new power 
>>>handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to 
>>>do so. ©¯There doesn©–t yet seem to us to be 
>>>an overwhelming case for a public intervention 
>>>that would effectively create a new industry 
>>>structure around this idea of a guaranteed 
>>>‘best efforts©– internet underpinned by 
>>>legislation,©— said Ofcom©–s Blowers.
>>>
>>>It©–s an attitude that sparks dismay from 
>>>campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©–s approach creates large 
>>>risks for the open internet,©— said Killock. 
>>>©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the 
>>>risks are weak, by relying on transparency and 
>>>competition alone, and it©–s unfortunate it 
>>>hasn©–t addressed the idea of a minimum 
>>>service guarantee.©—
>>>
>>>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs 
>>>shouldn©–t be permitted to block legal 
>>>websites or services that conflict with their 
>>>commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, 
>>>users should be able to access and distribute 
>>>the content, services and applications they 
>>>want,©— said European Commission vice 
>>>president Neelie Kroes earlier this year.
>>>©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors 
>>>°© for instance, those providing voice-over 
>>>the internet services °© shouldn©–t be 
>>>allowed.©—
>>>
>>>Yet, Ofcom doesn©–t even regard this as a 
>>>major issue. ©¯When VoIP services were first 
>>>launched in the UK, most [mobile] network 
>>>operators were against permitting VoIP,©— 
>>>Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you can find 
>>>packages from a number of suppliers that do 
>>>permit VoIP services.
>>>So I©–m not as pessimistic as some may be that 
>>>this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking 
>>>services will be a real problem.©—
>>>
>>>If the EU doesn©–t drag the UK©–s relaxed 
>>>regulator into line with the rest of the 
>>>world, it will be British internet users who 
>>>have the real problem.
>>>
>>>*Author:* Barry Collins
>>>
>>>
>>>Read more: The end of the net as we know it | 
>>>Broadband | Features | PC Pro 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y> 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y
>>>
>>>--
>>>PK
>>>
>>>
>>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today.
>>>
>>>I do not think we, as a premier global CS 
>>>group, can afford to *not* do something about 
>>>this issue. So many times a discussion on NN 
>>>on this list has run into this wall - it is a 
>>>very complex issues  with many sides to it'. 
>>>So ??? I dont think this is a good enough 
>>>reason for abdication. One often hears excuses 
>>>like, with voice and video domination the 
>>>internet today NN is a meaningless concept. 
>>>Not so at all. We can have specific provisions 
>>>whereby specific applications can have 
>>>different treatments while being 
>>>content-provider neutral, this latter being 
>>>the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have 
>>>oftne been mentioned in discussions here 
>>>earlier. These guidelines allow space to 
>>>manage voice and vedio applications related 
>>>issues. IS there any reason why Norway's 
>>>guidelines cannot be used globally, and why 
>>>should IGC be forcefully pushing for them. I 
>>>fear that if soon enough there is not a basic 
>>>global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway 
>>>like countries may not be able to preserve NN, 
>>>such is the globalness of the Internet and its 
>>>basic architectural principles.
>>>
>>>What I am arguing for is that we should not 
>>>only propose NN as a plenary topic and 
>>>absolutely put our foot down that it must be 
>>>accepted as a plenary topic, or else we find 
>>>the whole exercise meaningless and may not 
>>>even want to participate.... I mean the kind 
>>>of warnings we issue about Ms-ism. Parminder
>>>
>>>The end of the net as we know it
>>>
>>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
>>>
>>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that 
>>>don't pay them first. Barry Collins fears a 
>>>disastrous end to net neutrality
>>>
>>>You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC 
>>>iPlayer bookmark and press Play on the latest 
>>>episode of QI. But instead of that tedious, 
>>>plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your 
>>>laptop©–s speakers, you©–re left staring at 
>>>the whirring, circular icon as the video 
>>>buffers and buffers and buffers...
>>>
>>>That©–s odd. Not only have you got a new 
>>>40Mbits/sec fibre broadband connection, but 
>>>you were watching a Full HD video on Sky 
>>>Player just moments ago. There©–s nothing 
>>>wrong with your connection; it must be 
>>>iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if 
>>>anyone else is having problems streaming 
>>>Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on 
>>>your screen leaves you looking more startled 
>>>than Bill Bailey. ©¯This service isn©–t 
>>>supported on your broadband service. Click 
>>>here to visit our social-networking partner, 
>>>Facebook.©—
>>>
>>>Net neutrality? We don©–t have it today
>>>
>>>The free, unrestricted internet as we know it 
>>>is under threat. Britain©–s leading ISPs are 
>>>attempting to construct a two-tier internet, 
>>>where websites and services that are willing 
>>>to pay are thrust into the ©¯fast lane©—, 
>>>while those that don©–t are left fighting for 
>>>scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. 
>>>They©–re not so much ripping up the cherished 
>>>notion of net neutrality as pouring petrol 
>>>over the pieces and lighting the match. The 
>>>only question is: can they get away with it?
>>>
>>>No such thing as net neutrality
>>>
>>>It©–s worth pointing out that the concept of 
>>>net neutrality °© ISPs treating different 
>>>types of internet traffic or content equally 
>>>°© is already a busted flush. ©¯Net 
>>>neutrality? We don©–t have it today,©— argues 
>>>Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy 
>>>and regulation at TalkTalk, Britain©–s second 
>>>biggest ISP.
>>>
>>>©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated 
>>>network at all levels, with huge levels of 
>>>widespread discrimination of traffic types. 
>>>[Some consumers] buy high speed, some buy low 
>>>speed; some buy a lot of capacity, some buy 
>>>less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy 
>>>shaped.
>>>©¯So the suggestion that °© ‘oh dear, it is 
>>>terrible, we might move to a two-tiered 
>>>internet in the future'... well, let©–s get 
>>>real, we have a very multifaceted and 
>>>multitiered internet today,©— Heaney said.
>>>
>>>Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be 
>>>©¯unthinkable©— to return to an internet where 
>>>every packet of data was given equal weight. 
>>>©¯Yes, the internet of 30 years ago was one in 
>>>which all data, all the bits and the packets 
>>>were treated in the same way as they passed 
>>>through the network,©— said Simon Milner, 
>>>BT©–s director of group industry policy. 
>>>©¯That was an internet that wasn©–t about the 
>>>internet that we have today: it wasn©–t about 
>>>speech, it wasn©–t about video, and it 
>>>certainly wasn©–t about television.
>>>
>>>©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists 
>>>realised that applications would grab as much 
>>>bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some 
>>>tools were needed to make this network work 
>>>more effectively, and that©–s why traffic 
>>>management techniques and guaranteed quality 
>>>of service were developed in the 1990s, and 
>>>then deep-packet inspection came along roughly 
>>>ten years ago,©— he added. ©¯These techniques 
>>>and equipment are essential for the 
>>>development of the internet we see today.©—
>>>
>>>It©–s interesting to note that some smaller 
>>>(and, yes, more expensive) ISPs such as Zen 
>>>Internet don©–t employ any traffic shaping 
>>>across their network, and Zen has won the PC 
>>>Pro 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/>Best 
>>>Broadband ISP award for the past seven years.
>>>
>>>Even today©–s traffic management methods can 
>>>cause huge problems for certain websites and 
>>>services. Peer-to-peer services are a common 
>>>victim of ISPs©– traffic management policies, 
>>>often being deprioritised to a snail©–s pace 
>>>during peak hours. While the intended target 
>>>may be the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent 
>>>clients to download illicit copies of the 
>>>latest movie releases, legitimate applications 
>>>can also fall victim to such blunderbuss 
>>>filtering.
>>>
>>>©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide 
>>>ranging,©— said Jean-Jacques Sahel, director 
>>>of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP 
>>>service Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely 
>>>peer-to-peer file-sharing applications that 
>>>were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, 
>>>all the way to things such as the BBC iPlayer 
>>>[which used to run on P2P software] or Skype. 
>>>So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic 
>>>from a technical perspective, knowing that 
>>>Skype actually doesn©–t eat up much bandwidth 
>>>at all, why should it be deprioritised because 
>>>it©–s peer-to-peer?©—
>>>
>>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic 
>>>management been felt more vividly than on the 
>>>mobile internet
>>>
>>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic 
>>>management been felt more vividly than on the 
>>>mobile internet. Websites and services blocked 
>>>at the whim of the network, video so 
>>>compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda 
>>>propaganda tape, and varying charges for 
>>>different types of data are already 
>>>commonplace.
>>>
>>>Skype is outlawed by a number of British 
>>>mobile networks fearful of losing phone call 
>>>revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching 
>>>the BBC iPlayer over a 3G connection; and 
>>>almost all networks outlaw tethering a mobile 
>>>phone to a laptop or tablet on standard 
>>>©¯unlimited data©— contracts.
>>>
>>>Jim Killock, executive director of the Open 
>>>Rights Group, has this chilling warning for 
>>>fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the 
>>>mobile market, think if that is how you want 
>>>your internet and your devices to work in the 
>>>future, because that©–s where things are 
>>>leading.©—
>>>
>>>Video blockers
>>>
>>>Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely 
>>>resisted the more drastic blocking measures 
>>>chosen by the mobile operators. But if 
>>>there©–s one area in which ISPs are gagging to 
>>>rip up what©–s left of the cherished concept 
>>>of net neutrality, it©–s video.
>>>
>>>Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer 
>>>to become the largest single category of 
>>>internet traffic, according to Cisco©–s Visual 
>>>Networking Index. It©–s the chief reason why 
>>>the amount of data used by the average 
>>>internet connection has shot up by 31% over 
>>>the past year, to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a 
>>>month.
>>>
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070>
>>>Managing video traffic is unquestionably a 
>>>major headache for ISPs and broadcasters 
>>>alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter 
>>>traffic management policies to make sure 
>>>networks don©–t collapse under the weight of 
>>>video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, 
>>>broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay 
>>>content delivery networks (CDNs) such as 
>>>Akamai millions of pounds every year to 
>>>distribute their video across the network and 
>>>closer to the consumer; this helps avoid 
>>>bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands 
>>>of people attempt to stream The Apprentice at 
>>>the same time.
>>>
>>>Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and 
>>>get video broadcasters to pay them °© instead 
>>>of the CDNs °© for guaranteed bandwidth. So 
>>>if, for example, the BBC wants to guarantee 
>>>that TalkTalk customers can watch 
>>>uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had 
>>>better be willing to pay for the privilege. A 
>>>senior executive at a major broadcaster told 
>>>PC Pro that his company has already been 
>>>approached by two leading ISPs looking to cut 
>>>such a deal.
>>>
>>>Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into 
>>>the ©¯fast lane©—; those who don©–t will be 
>>>left to fight their way through the regular 
>>>internet traffic jams. Whether or not you can 
>>>watch a video, perhaps even one you©–ve paid 
>>>for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of 
>>>your connection or the amount of network 
>>>congestion, but whether the broadcaster has 
>>>paid your ISP for a prioritised stream.
>>>
>>>©¯We absolutely could see situations in which 
>>>some content or application providers might 
>>>want to pay BT for a quality of service above 
>>>best efforts,©— admitted BT©–s Simon Milner at 
>>>a recent Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the 
>>>kind of thing that we©–d have to explain in 
>>>our traffic management policies, and indeed 
>>>we©–d do so, and then if somebody decided, 
>>>‘well, actually I don©–t want to have that 
>>>kind of service©–, they would be free to go 
>>>elsewhere.©—
>>>
>>>We absolutely could see situations in which 
>>>some content or application providers might 
>>>want to pay BT for a quality of service above 
>>>best efforts
>>>
>>>It gets worse. Asked directly at the same 
>>>forum whether TalkTalk would be willing to cut 
>>>off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour 
>>>of YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign 
>>>a big enough cheque, TalkTalk©–s Andrew Heaney 
>>>replied: ©¯We©–d do a deal, and we©–d look at 
>>>YouTube and we©–d look at BBC and we should 
>>>have freedom to sign whatever deal works.©—
>>>
>>>That©–s the country©–s two biggest ISPs °© 
>>>with more than eight million broadband 
>>>households between them °© openly admitting 
>>>they©–d either cut off or effectively cripple 
>>>video streams from an internet
>>>broadcaster if it wasn©–t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
>>>
>>>Understandably, many of the leading 
>>>broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The founding 
>>>principle of the internet is that everyone °© 
>>>from individuals to global companies °© has 
>>>equal access,©— wrote the BBC©–s director of 
>>>future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in 
>>>a recent blog post on net neutrality. ©¯Since 
>>>the beginning, the internet has been 
>>>‘neutral©–, and everyone has been treated the 
>>>same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes 
>>>allow broadband providers to effectively pick 
>>>and choose what you see first and fastest.©—
>>>
>>>ITV also opposes broadband providers being 
>>>allowed to shut out certain sites or services. 
>>>©¯We strongly believe that traffic throttling 
>>>shouldn©–t be conducted on the basis of 
>>>content provider; throttling access to content 
>>>from a particular company or institution,©— 
>>>the broadcaster said in a recent submission to 
>>>regulator Ofcom©–s consultation on net 
>>>neutrality.
>>>
>>>Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a 
>>>broadcaster and one of the country©–s leading 
>>>ISPs, and a company that could naturally 
>>>benefit from shutting out rival broadcasters 
>>>°© raised no such objection in its submission 
>>>to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should be 
>>>relied upon to provide the necessary consumer 
>>>safeguards,©— Sky argued.
>>>
>>>Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially 
>>>run from a small office above a pizzeria 
>>>before Google weighed in with its $1.65 
>>>billion takeover °© have got off the ground if 
>>>its three founders had been forced to pay ISPs 
>>>across the globe to ensure its videos could be 
>>>watched smoothly? It seems unlikely.
>>>
>>>Walled-garden web
>>>
>>>It isn©–t only high-bandwidth video sites that 
>>>could potentially be blocked by ISPs. 
>>>Virtually any type of site could find itself 
>>>barred if one of its rivals has signed an 
>>>exclusive deal with an ISP, returning the web 
>>>to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of 
>>>the late 1990s.
>>>
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073>
>>>This isn©–t journalistic scaremongering: the 
>>>prospect of hugely popular sites being blocked 
>>>by ISPs is already being debated by the 
>>>Government. ©¯I sign up to the two-year 
>>>contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months my 
>>>daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door 
>>>and says ‘father, I can©–t access Facebook any 
>>>more©–,©— hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head of 
>>>international ICT policy at the Department for 
>>>Business, Innovation and Skills. ©¯I say 
>>>‘Why?©–. She says ‘It©–s quite obvious, I have 
>>>gone to the site and I have found that 
>>>TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever, don©–t 
>>>take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©–t pay 
>>>them the money, but YouTube has, so I have 
>>>gone to YouTube©–: Minister, is that 
>>>acceptable? That is the sort of question we 
>>>face.©—
>>>
>>>Where©–s the regulator?
>>>
>>>So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes 
>>>to say ©¯yes©—, think about the prospect of 
>>>ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and 
>>>leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining 
>>>bandwidth? It ran a consultation on net 
>>>neutrality earlier this year, with spiky 
>>>contributions from ISPs and broadcasters 
>>>alike, but it appears to be coming down on the 
>>>side of the broadband providers.
>>>
>>>©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion 
>>>document [on net neutrality] that we see the 
>>>real economic merits to the idea of allowing a 
>>>two-sided market to emerge,©— said Alex 
>>>Blowers, international director at Ofcom.
>>>
>>>©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, 
>>>where it seems to us that the consumer 
>>>expectation will be a service that©–s of a 
>>>reasonably consistent quality, that allows you 
>>>to actually sit down at the beginning of a 
>>>film and watch it to the end without constant 
>>>problems of jitter or the picture hanging,©— 
>>>he said. Taking that argument to its logical 
>>>conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse 
>>>to pay the ISPs©– bounty will be subject to 
>>>stuttering quality.
>>>
>>>Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be 
>>>tougher. ©¯We are concerned that Ofcom isn©–t 
>>>currently taking a firm stance in relation to 
>>>throttling,©— ITV said in its submission to 
>>>the regulator. The BBC also said it has 
>>>©¯concerns about the increasing potential 
>>>incentives for discriminatory behaviour by 
>>>network operators, which risks undermining the 
>>>internet©–s character, and ultimately 
>>>resulting in consumer harm©—.
>>>
>>>Ofcom©–s Blowers argues regulation would be 
>>>premature as ©¯there is very little evidence©— 
>>>that ©¯the big beasts of the content 
>>>application and services world are coming 
>>>together and doing deals with big beasts of 
>>>the network and ISP world©—.
>>>
>>>The regulator also places great faith in the 
>>>power of competition: the theory that 
>>>broadband subscribers would simply jump ship 
>>>to another ISP if their provider started doing 
>>>beastly things °© for example, cutting off 
>>>services such as the iPlayer. It©–s a theory 
>>>echoed by the ISPs themselves. ©¯If we started 
>>>blocking access to certain news sites, you 
>>>could be sure within about 23 minutes it would 
>>>be up on a blog and we©–d be chastised for it, 
>>>quite rightly too,©— said TalkTalk©–s Heaney.
>>>
>>>First and foremost, users should be able to 
>>>access and distribute the content, services 
>>>and applications they want
>>>
>>>Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where 
>>>broadband subscriptions are routinely sold as 
>>>part of the same deal as TV, telephone or 
>>>mobile services °© hopping from one ISP to 
>>>another is rarely simple. Not to mention the 
>>>18-month or two-year contracts broadband 
>>>customers are frequently chained to. As the 
>>>BBC pointed out in its submission to the 
>>>regulator, ©¯Ofcom©–s 2009 research showed 
>>>that a quarter of households found it 
>>>difficult to switch broadband and bundled 
>>>services©—, with the ©¯perceived hassle of the 
>>>switching process©— and ©¯the threat of 
>>>additional charges©— dissuading potential 
>>>switchers.
>>>
>>>©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a 
>>>contract, that©–s that,©— argued the Open 
>>>Rights Group©–s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make 
>>>your choice and you lump it, whereas the whole 
>>>point of the internet is you make your choice, 
>>>you don©–t like it, you change your mind.©—
>>>
>>>The best hope of maintaining the status quo of 
>>>a free and open internet may lie with the EU 
>>>(although even its determination is wavering). 
>>>The EU©–s 2009 framework requires national 
>>>regulators such as Ofcom to promote ©¯the 
>>>ability of end users to access and distribute 
>>>information or run applications and services 
>>>of their choice©— and that ISPs are 
>>>transparent about any traffic management.
>>>
>>>It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting 
>>>favoured partners in the ©¯fast lane©— and 
>>>crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power 
>>>to set ©¯minimum quality of service 
>>>requirements©— °© forcing ISPs to reserve a 
>>>set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic 
>>>management doesn©–t hobble those sites that 
>>>can©–t afford to pay.
>>>
>>>It©–s a concept enthusiastically backed by the 
>>>BBC and others, but not by the ISPs or Ofcom, 
>>>which doesn©–t have to use this new power 
>>>handed down by Brussels and seems reluctant to 
>>>do so. ©¯There doesn©–t yet seem to us to be 
>>>an overwhelming case for a public intervention 
>>>that would effectively create a new industry 
>>>structure around this idea of a guaranteed 
>>>‘best efforts©– internet underpinned by 
>>>legislation,©— said Ofcom©–s Blowers.
>>>
>>>It©–s an attitude that sparks dismay from 
>>>campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©–s approach creates large 
>>>risks for the open internet,©— said Killock. 
>>>©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the 
>>>risks are weak, by relying on transparency and 
>>>competition alone, and it©–s unfortunate it 
>>>hasn©–t addressed the idea of a minimum 
>>>service guarantee.©—
>>>
>>>At least the EU is adamant that ISPs 
>>>shouldn©–t be permitted to block legal 
>>>websites or services that conflict with their 
>>>commercial interests. ©¯First and foremost, 
>>>users should be able to access and distribute 
>>>the content, services and applications they 
>>>want,©— said European Commission vice 
>>>president Neelie Kroes earlier this year.
>>>©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors 
>>>°© for instance, those providing voice-over 
>>>the internet services °© shouldn©–t be 
>>>allowed.©—
>>>
>>>Yet, Ofcom doesn©–t even regard this as a 
>>>major issue. ©¯When VoIP services were first 
>>>launched in the UK, most [mobile] network 
>>>operators were against permitting VoIP,©— 
>>>Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you can find 
>>>packages from a number of suppliers that do 
>>>permit VoIP services.
>>>So I©–m not as pessimistic as some may be that 
>>>this kind of gaming behaviour around blocking 
>>>services will be a real problem.©—
>>>
>>>If the EU doesn©–t drag the UK©–s relaxed 
>>>regulator into line with the rest of the 
>>>world, it will be British internet users who 
>>>have the real problem.
>>>
>>>Author: Barry Collins
>>>
>>>
>>>Read more: 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y>The 
>>>end of the net as we know it | Broadband | 
>>>Features | PC Pro 
>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>PK
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> 
>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> 
>>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email: 
>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>> 
>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>> 
>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: 
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>--
>PK
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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

____________________________________________________________
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