[governance] The Value of Net Neutrality Was:Re:[bestbits] Marco Civil vote posponed !

Joly MacFie joly at punkcast.com
Wed Nov 6 06:01:34 EST 2013 

Tim Wu just posted this link on his fb

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/

"Net neutrality is a dead man walking."

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi Luca,
>
> Thinking about agenda bashing for the May meeting (something suggested on another list), in Bali were heard Brazil say the norms and principles President Rousseff presented to the UN general assembly should be among the topics discussed.  The 5th principle is
>
> * Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes.
>
> In a high level meeting, with some stakeholders who might not be overly keen (to put it mildly) on any network neutrality discussion, all the same civil society pushing for agreement on some broad principles protecting net neutrality would be very much worthwhile.  The principles the dynamic coalition's developed, plus other work, might form the basis for a discussion at the May meeting, with a view to a recommendation to form a working group (enhancing the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality) to develop the principles further.
>
> Taking this a bit further, a goal of the May meeting might be to establish a workplan to address the topics discussed there.  For example an agenda built around President Rousseff's five norms/principles, plus ICANN and IANA reform, might see...
> A recommendation for a working group to refine principles on network neutrality.
> A working group to develop an institutional framework around the IANA function.
> A discussion on ICANN reform, but more of a watching brief; a process to monitor and report on the organization's progress responding to the processes established by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with a view to releasing it from all ties to a single govt., with parallel discussion about appropriate future oversight once the intent of the AoC achieved.
> A process established to develop broad human rights framework, perhaps building on what was described during the IGF session on surveillance as the "Swedish Model" (this might begin to address Rousseff's first principle "Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights.")
> etc.
>
> Use the May meeting to set in motion a number of different activities, some with definite goals worthy of a working group (e.g. develop an institutional framework), others more general and open-ended.
>
> For process to carry such things forward there will be an IGF in Turkey early September, and an IGF in Brazil about 18 months later. May is also typically when the IGF agenda is decided, so that's a fit.  Take the workplan a few months forward to September and the IGF in Turkey would be an opportunity check on progress and for further discussion to guide the work. IGF 2015 to report on completion of efforts. IGF pre-meetings and a couple of days of the main IGF agenda given over to carrying discussion forward from Brazil May.
>
> Hopefully strengthen the IGF, with a plan of work that leads to outcomes, that raises its profile and relevance, utilizing working groups with a definite goal, something we've long spoke about in civil society. Makes sure there is a firm multistakeholder foundation for Internet governance discussion.
>
> And overall recognizing we have to compromise at the beginning or we won't even get started.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Luca Belli wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As stressed by Louis, Network Neutrality is a thorny and multifaceted issue.
>> The NN debate is gaining great political momentum because it has obvious consequences on media (de)centralisation and therefore on media control. One of the points of rough consensus that clearly emerged during IGF workshop 340 “Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms” is that the protection of NN has direct consequences on the full enjoyment of end-users’ human rights, on media pluralism and on consumers’ rights. And these consequences are particularly amplified when Internet users are marginalised people who are not able to organise themselves and get their voice heard by policy-makers.
>>
>> The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DC NN) has elaborated a Report on “The Value of Network Neutrality for the Internet of Tomorrow” that aims at elucidating some of the facets of the NN debate, focusing particularly on human rights issues. The report is available here:http://nebula.wsimg.com/22eb364444f4e32abb876b9be835baf8?AccessKeyId=B45063449B96D27B8F85&disposition=0
>> By all means, comments are more than welcome.
>>
>> Furthermore, the DC NN has developed a model framework on net neutrality, transposing the IETF standardisation process to NN policy-making (see the contribution on “A Discourse Principle Approach to Network Neutrality” in the DC NN report). The elaboration of the model framework was initiated and has been stimulated by the Council of Europe that stressed the need for a model framework on net neutrality since 2010 (see: art 9 of the CoE Committee of Ministers Declaration on Network Neutrality). The model has been developed entirely online by the DC NN through an open, transparent, inclusive and multi-stakeholder approach and is going to be communicated to the CoE Committee of Ministers in a couple of weeks.
>>
>> What we should be aware of is that unregulated discriminatory traffic-management has the potential to affect almost all dimensions of Internet governance, leading to enormous concentration of power in the hands of private entities that are not framed by rule-of-law and due process principles. For this reason, y humble opinion is that NN should be one of the priorities of the Rio “meeting” in April.
>>
>> I truly hope that that people will realise that what is at stake is the choice between allowing Internet users to be active participants to the Internet or mere information recipients.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Luca
>>
>> Luca Belli
>> Doctorant en Droit Public
>> CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas
>> Sorbonne University
>>
>>
>>
>> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100
>> > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> > From: jefsey at jefsey.com
>> > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed !
>> >
>> > At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> > >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial
>> > >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia,
>> > >but it would be good to have material out there from you all
>> > >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed
>> > >in Brasilia right now....
>> > >
>> > >http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm
>> >
>> > Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined.
>> > Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly
>> > undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to".
>> > This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever
>> > it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of
>> > view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are
>> > independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this
>> > therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles:
>> >
>> > 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may
>> > be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the
>> > disparities between customers and traffic levels.
>> > 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be)
>> > that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the
>> > advantages to the "most favored partner" .
>> >
>> > Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides
>> > can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among
>> > providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as
>> > far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not
>> > the case if:
>> >
>> > 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non
>> > commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or
>> > to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its
>> > delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
>> > 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a
>> > lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated
>> > management of the user's catenet within the global interneting.
>> >
>> > From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from
>> > an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides
>> > you an internet link
>> > that
>> > he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with
>> > the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is
>> > a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust.
>> >
>> > The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special
>> > complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation.
>> >
>> > In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the
>> > users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT
>> > a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of
>> > each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently
>> > use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the
>> > rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do
>> > not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements
>> > (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education,
>> > etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal
>> > or corporate relational spaces within the digital international
>> > networking space (InterNet).
>> >
>> >
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-

-------------- 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

More information about the Governance mailing list