[governance] net neutrality
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 23 04:06:16 EST 2011
Adam
Hope you have no problem if i continue with this discussion. I am not
picking holes in your paper, but arguing my understanding of NN, and
what I see is the urgent need to come up with a global NN framework.
Adam Peake wrote:
> 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.
Can you tell be how it is difficult to enforce the principle or
regulatory law that 'there will be no content provider specific
pay-for-priority on the public Internet'.
I am very sure it can be enforced with 100 percent clarity and
effectiveness... This is also written in the FCC's new NN framework and
from all that I know they mean to enforce it. So how you are claiming
that this rule may not practically enforcable or to be closer to your
language 'problems will come when we try to enforce this rule'. For me
this is the basic NN rule and it is very clear and 100 percent enforceable.
Many may have claimed at first that regulations that broke up first
telephone network monopolies and then broke the hardware-software
coupling will be difficult to enforce. However if these regulations were
not framed and enforced we may not have seen the information or ICT
revolution.
The main difference between those times and now is that the ICT
structure today is inherently global - and the most powerful countries
while they can clearly see the public interest benefit of NN for their
own people, they know that with an inequitous and non neutral Internet,
it will be their mega digital corporate which will win against newcomers
from the developing world. So they are caught between supporting an
evident public interest cause and not weakening the special global
advantage their companies enjoy today. This is the key 'policy
conundrum' in the globalised world today.
Parminder
> 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
>
>
--
PK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110123/b6f857be/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list