[governance] [Internet Policy] FW: [Disarmed] [nncoalition] [Disarmed] Request for Comments - Statements on Net Neutrality ‏

Tue May 19 14:39:19 EDT 2015

Hi John, 

Thanks for your feedback. 
Net
neutrality as defined in the text mirrors the definition of freedom of
expression under international human rights standards (see eg ICCPR). I agree that freedom to
seek, impart and receive any kind of information and ideas may sound
incompatible with censorship (and indeed it should be) but defining FoE or NN does not mean that those principles cannot have limitations. Neither NN nor FoE is an absolute principle and both can be limited. However, in order to avoid abusive behaviours,  such limitations should be provided by law or regulations and be necessary and proportionate to a
legitimate purpose.  The Model
Framework on Network Neutrality, that was elaborated by the DCNN, defines net neutrality
and lists exceptions to equal treatment  (eg
give effect to law and court order; network security and integrity; etc). See http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html

However the
current Draft NN statement (which is based on the previous work of the DCNN) is meant to be a
principle statement rather than a model regulatory framework. In my opinion, the
definition of exceptions to net neutrality should be included in a regulatory
framework rather than in a principle statement.  Don’t you agree? 

Anyway, you are raising a valid point and, fortunately, the second comment period
just opened and will close in 10 days, so you (and everyone else) are free to express 
your concerns commenting the draft statement via the googledoc and pad listed below :)

And yes,
both private sector and administrative entities were involved.  And as I said, this document is still a draft
and the purpose of my email is indeed to stimulate further constructive critiques. 

Best, 

Luca

From: jlaprise at gmail.com
To: lucabelli at hotmail.it; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
Subject: RE: [Internet Policy] FW: [Disarmed] [nncoalition] [Disarmed] Request for Comments - Statements on Net Neutrality ‏
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 10:28:27 -0500

Hi Luca, I like and agree with it but it is a non-starter for governments and the private sector. As defined in the document, network neutrality would ban censorship and undermine IPR. Were members of either stakeholder group involved in the fashioning of this statement? I think its dead on arrival. Best regards,  John Laprise, Ph.D.Consulting Scholar http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/   From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Luca Belli
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:37 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
Subject: [Internet Policy] FW: [Disarmed] [nncoalition] [Disarmed] Request for Comments - Statements on Net Neutrality ‏  Dear all (apologies for cross-posting),  Many thanks for the numerous comments to the initial draft statement (see eg this google doc). The DRAFT 2.0 is in attachment and can be commented on using this googledoc, this pad or via the mailing-list of the Dynamic Coalition on network Neutrality (DCNN). Comments converged as regards the need for a concise NN statement that may be compatible but independent from the Model Framework on Network Neutrality (MF), elaborated by the DCNN and presented at the 8th IGF. Michael and I (the drafters) consolidated the received comments into a quite concise Draft 2.0 and would like to have your advise on whether to include or not the specialised service provisions in this Draft. The possible options would be to: (i)              Have a separate statement on specialised services. In this case a specialised service statement will be circulated in the forthcoming days for comments. (ii)             Include concise specialised service provisions in the attached Draft 2.0. This option may provide a more complete text but may also make it more difficult to reach consensus on the Statement. (iii)           Include detailed provisions on specialised service in an updated version of the MF. Such option would allow to have both a principle-statement, expressing a common IGF vision on NN, and a detailed MF 2.0 supported by DCNN members (and perhaps by GNN members?) providing specific indications on how to frame both NN and specialized services.  The deadline to comment this second draft is Saturday 29 May. Subsequently a final draft will be shared and, if needed, an extra 10-day comment period will be opened.   Thanks a lot for your contributions! Best,Luca  Dear all, (apologies for crossposting)

This is a Request for Comments with regard to the development of two Policy Statements on Net Neutrality promoted by members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN) and the Global Coalition on Net Neutrality (GNN), to be discussed within the IGF community at-large. SUBJECT
The development of the DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statements aims at promoting the endorsement of an agreed position on net neutrality by the IGF community, based on the Model Framework on Network Neutrality developed by the DCNN. The development of these Policy Statements is consistent with the Final Chair's Summary of the IGF 2014, according to which "The ninth IGF concluded with looking at the role of the IGF in taking the network neutrality discussion forward. [...] The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality will continue the discussions leading up to the 2015 meeting, but the view was also held that there was a need to develop a process that allowed the entire IGF community to weigh in and validate the findings of the Dynamic Coalition." The DCNN Model Framework (MF) was presented at the 8th IGF in Bali and included in a Report on "Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality" delivered to the Council of Europe Steering Committee on Media and Information Society to be used as a working document for the elaboration of a Draft Recommendation on Net Neutrality. To date, the MF has been conveyed to several Parliamentary assemblies (EU Parliament, Argentinian Senate and South Korean Parliament) by DCNN members. However, although it has already played an inspirational role, the model has never been officially validated by the IGF community at-large, as pointed out by the Chairs Summary. This lack of validation is primarily due to the lack of an official validation process for dynamic coalitions' outcomes within the IGF structure. The development of the Policy Statements aims therefore at filling this gap through a self-organised and bottom-up process, which is the very essence of the IGF.
DRAFT POLICY STATEMENTSDuring the RightsCon joint meeting of the DCNN and the GNN, consensus emerged as regards the elaboration of one or more DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statement(s) to be presented to the IGF MAG and discussed - and hopefully endorsed - by the IGF community at-large. 
The initial DRAFT policy statements are in attachment. The first policy statement (I. On Network Neutrality) aims at providing a concise and "human readable" version of the MF, while the second statement (II. On Specialised Services) aims at expanding the MF definition and provisions on specialised services, adding some further elements. The statements also include a "restyling" of the MF (APPENDIX Model Framework v.2.0). The original provisions of the MF have been reorganised within this restyled version, in order to identify with more clarity the key issues that should be evoked in the policy statements. The only modification to the MF content concerns the expansion of the specialised service provisions, in order include the additional elements that are proposed in Statement II.
DRAFTERS 
According to DC NN Rules of Procedure, two drafters have been designated in order to "manage the elaboration of the position or statement and consolidate received comments with the aim of achieving a consensus document." The two individuals who volunteered as drafters are:- Luca Belli, DCNN Co-Chair and Researcher at the Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de Janeiro - Michał Woźniak, Warsaw Hackerspace and Polish Linux Users Group
CALENDAR
Comments to this initial DRAFT should be sent by 10 May 2015. After this deadline, the drafters will consolidate the comments and provide an updated draft that will be shared for a second round of comments.According to DCNN Rules of procedure, "DCNN members will be provided with 14 calendar days to comment, followed by a revised draft, and 10 calendar days to comment the revised draft." To foster the inclusion of widest number of comments from the IGF community at-large, all individuals will be allowed to comment the Draft statements using this google doc and this Pad. You are also free to share your inputs and critiques writing to the DCNN mailing-list nncoalition at mailman.edri.org to which you can subscribe following this link. 
Thanks in advance for your comments and, please, do not hesitate to share this email.
Best regards, 
Luca  Luca Belli, PhDResearcher, Center for Technology & Society, FGV Rio de JaneiroFounder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network NeutralityCo-founder and Co-chair, IGF Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility 

_______________________________________________ NNcoalition mailing list NNcoalition at mailman.edri.org http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150519/7cccfe6a/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