[IRP] WE NEED YOU - crucial phase of drafting Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet

[Ian Peter]

Both net neutrality and end to end are usually advanced as principles. Both
ideas are conveying an unclear concept which might be important and which
might lead to a right we want to express. I do think there is an essence
here which is important, but the right is not end to end or net neutrality
but something else. I hope we get to the right words.




On 5/10/09 5:03 PM, "Max Senges" <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Lee welcome to the discussion
>> 
>> If I may try to gently wade into this discussion: I agree with Ian that
>> talking a lot about a 'right' to network neutrality is a mistake best
>> avoided.
>> 
> One of the key mistakes we agreed to avoid is to call anything but Human
> Rights rights - so there is no right to net neutrality in the text. Only a
> principles that creates the condition for us to enjoy our rights online.
> 
> Best
> Max
> 
> 
> 
> ?
>> However, the 'principle' of network neutrality is already enshrined in
>> various docs, even if folks like Ian and I have been warning that any use of
>> the the phrase is problematic, since it is a quagmire of ambiguity.
>> 
>> However, if folks see a need to endorse the principle I can say that likely
>> won't make things much worse.
>> 
>> The Google lobbyists who popularized the term must now be squirming, as AT&T
>> scores political points of its own, having sued Google last week for alleged
>> violations of network neutrality.
>> 
>> Anyway, my advice is be very very careful with those 2 words.
>> 
>> On the other hand, a wholesale endorsement of a right to an open Internet, as
>> well as open Internet access, are defensible logically and politically; in my
>> opinion. Even if they have their own ambiguities.
>> 
>> Lee
>> ________________________________________
>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Max Senges
>> [maxsenges at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 11:13 AM
>> To: Ian Peter; irp; Internet Rights Discussion Group
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] WE NEED YOU - crucial phase of drafting Charter of Human ?
>> ? Rights and Principles on the Internet
>> 
>> Hi folks
>> 
>> Ian (who co-moderates the Internet Governance Caucus aka the mother of all IG
>> mailing lists) makes some interesting points below. I have commented inline.
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Ian Peter
>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Max, nice to hear from you. A couple of things come to mind from you
>> writing.
>> 
>> Firstly, we have chosen speakers for Sharm main sessions who will be willing
>> to advance the rights issue. It will be good to strategise what else we might
>> be able to do to advance the cause during the meeting.
>> 
>> 
>> One thing that comes to mind is that I am talking to avaaz.org
>> <http://avaaz.org> <http://avaaz.org> I would like to run some sort of
>> campaign and come with a long list of people who expressed that they care and
>> are worried about their Human Rights on the internet.
>> 
>> Secondly, what else can we do during Sharm? I think we need to make our
>> presence felt on this issue.
>> 
>> Anyway, to the text ? I?ll have a look later and make more comments but the
>> first thing that hit me was the use of both net neutrality and end to end
>> principles. I think we have to be very careful here.
>> 
>> Both end to end and net neutrality are retrofitted concepts that some people
>> continue to defend but neither of which applies to the internet as is. I
>> think we are better off dropping both phrases as both are contentious ? the
>> internet is not end to end and never will be, and where net neutrality starts
>> to imply no traffic shaping, we are getting into network management issues
>> which we are best to avoid. The Norwegians have got it ?right here ? I think
>> we need to talk about the rights to access content and applications of
>> choice, people understand that, and we avoid the technical debates and
>> opposition. Similarly with end to end ? lets express what we are trying to
>> achieve here and what the right is rather than imagining that somehow an
>> internet without firewalls is suddenly going to happen or that?s the way it
>> should be. ?In other words, we have adopted catch phrases which don?t help
>> our cause and create confusion ? lets get what we are trying to achieve here
>> right!
>> 
>> Interesting point. I don't consider myself a technology expert on the
>> infrastructure level. But I did discuss net neutrality on a panel at EuroDIG
>> and my position is: Yes of course we need traffic management. If there is too
>> many people and the lines are cogested some stuff (esp. real time apps like
>> voice, etc.) need to be prioritized. But there are two important aspects: A)
>> It needs to be reasonable - as in I want to know what and why: "your skype
>> video has been disabled. Please continue with voice only, because the XYZ
>> backbone in Chile is overloaded"
>> and B) the network must be open for innovation: As long as the data can be
>> transported using standard infrastructure (protokols), the net infrastructure
>> and the service providers should not have the possibility to build walled
>> gardens and only allow selected services. (I thought we were about to
>> overcome lock-in non-interoperable enviornments like compuserve and AOL)
>> 
>> my2cent
>> Max
>> 
>> (Robert, happy for you to pass this on to the drafters ? I?ll try to get to
>> log in in a few days, but if that doesn?t happen it would be good to have
>> these thoughts considered).
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091005/5b4d2a2b/attachment-0001.htm>