Re: [kictanet] [isoc_ke] Here I go again on Net Neutrality
It is sad that Kenya considers itself a leader on ICT, yet we have lagged way behind on two Key policy issues 1. Net Neutrality and 2. Intermediary liabilities. I shared the South African ICT policy framework sometimes back on this list that had a definite policy direction in Net Neutrality. Did we drop the ball by not championing this issues on the ICT Master plan? I support Ali's thinking to have a cross community round table and develop a paper ... then lobby for it to be adopted as a standard framework. Challenge is bringing all the relevant stakeholders on the table. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 9 February 2015 at 10:52, Joly MacFie via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear occasional pearls - such as this regulatory analysis (posted <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2015/02/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/0:38/20150208143818:0633E850-AFCA-11E4-8AE1-86185DAFC17C/> to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday):
The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The regulation that we need falls in several areas:
1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city, house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common national standard would go a long way.
2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing policy.
3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport" and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets within a class must be uniform.
4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks and legitimate operational issues.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
Mwendwa Maybe the problem is how we are approaching this issue? What can we do better to engage all stakeholders on this issue? Would be nice to hear from the Government side - even if it's from a private citizen capacity. Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:
It is sad that Kenya considers itself a leader on ICT, yet we have lagged way behind on two Key policy issues 1. Net Neutrality and 2. Intermediary liabilities.
I shared the South African ICT policy framework sometimes back on this list that had a definite policy direction in Net Neutrality. Did we drop the ball by not championing this issues on the ICT Master plan?
I support Ali's thinking to have a cross community round table and develop a paper ... then lobby for it to be adopted as a standard framework. Challenge is bringing all the relevant stakeholders on the table.
Regards
______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
On 9 February 2015 at 10:52, Joly MacFie via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear occasional pearls - such as this regulatory analysis (posted to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday):
The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The regulation that we need falls in several areas:
1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city, house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common national standard would go a long way.
2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing policy.
3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport" and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets within a class must be uniform.
4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks and legitimate operational issues.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
Ali, my layman's view is ... we approach a member of parliament to sponsor a private members bill. At least that is what I see some guys approach it. We up our game. But then ... we need to have a set of principles we are championing. Thus the draft paper should be ready by then. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 11 February 2015 at 07:55, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Mwendwa
Maybe the problem is how we are approaching this issue?
What can we do better to engage all stakeholders on this issue?
Would be nice to hear from the Government side - even if it's from a private citizen capacity.
*Ali Hussein*
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:
It is sad that Kenya considers itself a leader on ICT, yet we have lagged way behind on two Key policy issues 1. Net Neutrality and 2. Intermediary liabilities.
I shared the South African ICT policy framework sometimes back on this list that had a definite policy direction in Net Neutrality. Did we drop the ball by not championing this issues on the ICT Master plan?
I support Ali's thinking to have a cross community round table and develop a paper ... then lobby for it to be adopted as a standard framework. Challenge is bringing all the relevant stakeholders on the table.
Regards
______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
On 9 February 2015 at 10:52, Joly MacFie via isoc <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear occasional pearls - such as this regulatory analysis (posted <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2015/02/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/0:38/20150208143818:0633E850-AFCA-11E4-8AE1-86185DAFC17C/> to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday):
The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The regulation that we need falls in several areas:
1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city, house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common national standard would go a long way.
2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing policy.
3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport" and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets within a class must be uniform.
4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks and legitimate operational issues.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
participants (2)
-
Ali Hussein -
Mwendwa Kivuva