[governance] FW: The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC Perspective?

Fri Nov 16 01:23:45 EST 2012

Michael Kende, of AnalysisMason and the author of two reports that I
referred to in my earlier blogpost replied to the message that I sent to the
Governance e-list, but since he isn't a subscriber it didn't appear on the
list and he has asked me to ensure that it is circulated to the IGC. My
apologies to him and to you that this is coming late--it rather got caught
up in my work/travel first in central Africa and then at the IGF.

My reply to his comments can be found on the orginal blogpost @
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet
-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/  (note that my own thinking on
this has now evolved somewhat based in part on the interaction with Michael
and others on the blogsite, the BestBits meeting, the IGF, the various
discussions on various lists on the WCIT and the interactions on this list
in the last couple of days.

Best to all,

M

From: Michael Kende 
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:30 PM
To: michael gurstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: peter at hellmonds.net; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
Subject: RE: The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An
LDC Perspective?

Dear Mike,

Many thanks for providing a wider audience for the debate started on the
ISOC mailing list  if this email does not automatically post to the new
list, as well as your blog, I would appreciate your forwarding it on my
behalf.  I would like to raise several comments.

First, the first of the two papers that you link to below (Driving
broadband Africa) was written by my two colleagues Robert Schumann and Roz
Roseboro in our Johannesburg office, and was written as part of our research
program, and not on behalf of any clients.

Second, I began to work on internet interconnection issues in the late
1990s, when I was at the US Federal Communications Commission and led the
teams reviewing the mergers of the large Internet backbones at the time,
including MCI and WorldCom.  As a result of that work, I wrote an FCC
working paper, entitled The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet
Backbones, in which I explain the market dynamics of Internet
interconnection and why the unregulated system was working and appropriate 
the paper was released in 2000, and can be found here:
http://www.fcc.gov/working-papers/digital-handshake-connecting-internet-back
bones.  At that time, the issue of cost-sharing for international
interconnection had already been raised in a number of countries, notably in
Asia-Pacific, and in my paper I analyzed the arguments and concluded that it
would not be appropriate to regulate international interconnection.  Having
reviewed the incredible changes and growth in the Internet since then, my
analysis and conclusions remain consistent. 

Third, with respect to the recommendations on promoting network
infrastructure in the current paper (Internet global growth) which you
cited below, I would like to clarify that I have worked for telecom
regulators and Ministries in a number of developing countries in Latin
America, Africa, and Asia, all interested in how to promote convergence 
both network infrastructure and over-the-top services, and have consistently
delivered the recommendations that I provided in this paper.  I have also
been invited to present on these topics to the World Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank, and the ITU, and have delivered the same message.

Finally, I had responded to the original ISOC thread in order to contribute
to the discussion, and look forward to continuing these discussions
including contributions from a wide variety of authors and viewpoints.
Please do let me know if you come across any or if you have any questions or
comments.

Best regards,

Michael

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:38 PM
To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: peter at hellmonds.net; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Michael Kende
Subject: The ITU/WCIT: Thinking About Internet Regulatory Policy From An LDC
Perspective?

Note, this flows from a discussion that initially took place on a listserve
sponsored by ISOC on Internet Policy. I've changed the subject line here and
I've copied the others involved in this thread (I'm not sure if they are or
are not subbed to the Community Informatics or the governance lists) but I
know that they all have a deep knowledge and interest in this subject. I'm
also putting all of this below up on my blog http://gurstein.wordpress.com
where those with an interest might wish to carry forward this discussion.

The extended discussion is probably only for those with an interest in
Internet Governance issues and particularly as they apply to the regulatory
regimes (and policy stances) of Less Developed Countries and I would point
those with such an interest to research papers prepared by Michael Kende of
the consulting firm AnalysysMason on behalf of Amazon, AT&T, Cisco Systems,
Comcast, Google, Intel, Juniper Networks, Microsoft, National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA), News Corporation, Oracle, Telefónica,
Time Warner Cable, Verisign, and Verizon. 

specifically:

https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/ISOC%20WCIT%20statements%2
0
<https://fileshare.tools.isoc.org/wentworth/public/ISOC%20WCIT%20statements%
20&%20resources/Analysys_Mason_RDRK0_driving_broadband_Africa_Dec2011%20copy
.pdf>
&%20resources/Analysys_Mason_RDRK0_driving_broadband_Africa_Dec2011%20copy.p
df

and

http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Press-releases1/Internet-global-g
rowth-PR-Sept2012/?bp=http%3a%2f%2fwww.analysysmason.com%2fSearch%2f%23query
%3dglobal%2binternet%2bgrowth%26access%3dAll+content

I should say that both of these reports are very interesting and contain a
wealth of good information, however, the problem that I have with them and
particularly the second report is that it so clearly starts off with its
policy conclusion and builds a case to support this.  This is not an area of
particular expertise for me as I indicate in my comments in the below but my
gut is that the conclusions as to the appropriate policy regime for Less
Developed Countries (the apparent target for the second policy report from
Michael Kende) would look quite different if it was done from/by folks from
LDC's rather than sponsored as Kende's report was by Google, Cisco, Amazon,
Microsoft and so on and so on.

I'm not exactly sure what the LDC sponsored report would say but my guess
would be that they would focus rather more on looking at how costs and
benefits are and should be distributed as between some of the wealthiest
companies from some of the wealthiest countries and LDC's looking to
increase Internet access overall in environments of very low incomes, very
difficult physical environments, extremely weak regulatory and taxation
regimes, and vast areas and populations who might under some circumstances
derive benefit from Internet access but who would under almost any
conceivable current situation find paying for this almost impossible.

My hunch is that they wouldn't start out with indicating as the number one
recommendation of the report -- the basic point of the overall report from
what I can see -- the overwhelming importance of

Promoting network infrastructure: (by a) Focus on increasing investments
throughout the network, from mobile broadband access through national and
cross-border connectivity and IXPs, by removing roadblocks to lower the cost
of investment, including allocating spectrum for mobile broadband or
limiting licensing requirements and fees, in order to promote competitive
entry and growth.

>From what I am seeing (and Kende's report is as good a signal as any) the
Internet biggies are running a bit scared (the term "moral panic" comes to
mind) as to what "madness" might come out of the WCIT meeting that the ITU
is hosting in December in Dubai. And they are pulling out all the stops in
trying to derail any real discussion on how the costs and benefits might be
allocated of improving/extending Internet access in and into LDC's and
within LDC's to the other 99% or so in those countries who currently have no
possible means of access. This is of course because the ITU as the
traditional venue for global telecom "governance" includes among its 195 or
so Member States a very goodly proportion, probably a majority, who are
currently experiencing net costs (including many regimes who see these costs
in terms of lost political control) from Internet access and paticularly if
attempts at extending access to rural and maginalized populations are taken
into consideration, rather than net benefits and not surprisingly they are
looking at ways of righting that balance.

And so instead of actually sitting down and trying to figure out a global
regime for Internet (and possibly other) governance, that might in some
sense lead to an equitable distribution of costs and benefits the biggies
are launching verbal, research and whatever types of broadsides infinite
amounts of money, easy access to expertise and the current ascendance of
neo-libertarian (anti-State, anti-tax) ideology can muster.

I myself am of two minds on this issue.  I well recognize the value/benefits
that could flow from Internet access even to the poorest of the poor and the
overwhelming benefits that Internet access provides to those for example in
civil society who can take advantage of its more or less unlimited free flow
of communications and information (including through undermining various
repressive political regimes). On the other hand, the unlimited unregulated
policy environment advocated by reports like that of Kende and others of
that ideological ilk would I think, lead almost directly to a further
enrichment of the already stupendously wealthy and overall a signifcant
transfer of wealth and benefit from those with the least to those with the
most.

The challenge I think is to recognize both of the above as equally
likely/possible outcomes.  This implies the need to design and implement a
global regime which ensures the possibility of universal access to the
benefits of the Internet while ensuring that the provision of these
opportunities does not further enmiserate those currently least able to
obtain these benefits at least in part by destroying the means by which such
possible access to benefits could through public intervention, regulation
and yes, even taxation ensure that such a possibility of benefits can be
translated into actuality. 

Mike 

  _____  

  _____  

This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to
our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. 

Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered
office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number
05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit
www.analysysmason.com 

  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121115/b5c68690/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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