<html>
<body>
At 03:43 14/05/2014, Ali Hussein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">@fsp4net<br>
I think the post from Chip sort of answers your query to my post?
<b></b></blockquote><br>
At 03:43 14/05/2014, Ali Hussein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">@fsp4net<br>
I think the post from Chip sort of answers your query to my post?
</blockquote><br>
It does. <br><br>
However, the reason why we want to work on a fail-secure plan for the
nets and support the concept of a VGNSO is that we consider
infrastructures from an independent user initiative and not from an ISP
point of view. This makes us to pragmatically separate the three catenet,
internet and VGNs realities. <br><br>
This is simply because my browser, my OS, my mobile, my mailbox, my
dropbox, my apps, my bank account, my sources of updates, my firewall, my
antivirus, my facebook, my twitter, my favorites, my ISP competitive
proposition, my passwords, my box, my wifi, the NSA involvement, my
domain names, my site, my VPS, etc. start making a big virtual global
network of resources I am to manage, rationalize and pay and a
"digitality" of mine within the world digital ecosystem I need
to know, and master before I can even use it!<br><br>
Our reasoning is as follows: I am somewhere in the world, with my
personality, my business, my family, etc.: I look at the way I can
internet with other peoples and optimize my connection(s) for the budget
I can spend for my digital relations. So I look first at the connections
and machnes (hardware). Then at the way to get content through and
process it (software). Then at what I can do with it and others
(brainware). In so doing I am no more theorical than needed to
pragmatically get results. Very grassroots and I see that the needs and
solutions are quite similar everywhere.<br><br>
Where I leave I have 6 Meg max wifi. So I must spend a lot of money for a
remote machine I would have replicated at home would I have access to
fiber. And I would not have got hacked by ICANN aficionados to punish me
to support VGN experimentations :-) <br><br>
Neutrality for me is everything that helps, in a fair and legal manner,
reducing the barriers to my free exchange capability for what I intend to
do. I am certainly aware that there can be fair neutrality justments of
technical, economical, political nature since what I want to do is not
what Google wants to do for me. This is where a certain
"digizen" attitude must develop within the Internet
Governance.<br><br>
Our idea is that:<br><br>
(1) this digizenship is something the multitude must polycratically (i.e.
a well studied and described extension of democracy to self-sovereign
stakeholders and individualities) develop in common, with the help of
states, civil society, business, technicians, academics, etc. And we know
this will not develop and deploy in one day.<br><br>
(2) the diversity among these stakeholders and individualities makes the
common technology itself the only mutually bounding possible
"treaty" (we say "concordance": code is law, law
induces code). So we prefer to consider ethitechnic issues and equilibria
than the survival of ICANN in an obsolete form. IANA transition for us
does not mean a supervision transfer from NTIA to ICANN, but the
transition of the nascent digizenry from an US supervized IANA to a non
multitudarily supervized IANA (this supervision becoming the result of a
supervision by billions of VGN supervisor programs and Masters and will
serve as a common informational spine to billions of customized VGNICs -
virtual global network information center).<br><br>
jfc<br>
fsp4net alliance <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Anriette,<br><br>
Thank you for posting this to 1Net. I had just read this article
right before your posting. I’ve been following
<a href="http://manypossibilities.net">manypossibilities.net</a> for
several years and find it a good resource for tracking fiber deployment
in Africa (among other things).<br><br>
It provides an interesting perspective from Africa, but the concepts
describe could apply globally just like concepts discussed in the
US.<br><br>
I do have a couple of concerns about this article that it continues the
expansion of what falls under the term “Net Neutrality” in its
discussion of two issues:<br>
* Web caching (Google Cache)<br>
* Zero Rating<br><br>
The discussion on Net Neutrality has already gone way beyond the original
concern over blocking and degradation of traffic.<br><br>
Web Caching:<br>
The article claims that Google Cache violates net neutrality.
I’ve now seen that claim repeated on another African Internet-related
mail list so people are picking up the idea.<br><br>
This claim expands the concept of net neutrality from Internet access to
operation of services that run over the Internet (over-the-top or edge
providers).<br>
Google Cache is just one example of web caching that has been an
operational mechanism on the Internet since before Google existed (squid
v1.0 was released in 1996). It follows a basic design principle of
placing content as close to the consumer as is feasible to reduce latency
and cost of expensive underwater bits. So web caching (e.g., Google
Cache) is not a valid example of a good violation of Net Neutrality since
it is really unrelated to Net Neutrality.<br><br>
Zero Rating:<br>
The concept of zero rating is a little more difficult. The Net
Neutrality debate has traditionally focused on blocking or degrading of
traffic by an Internet access provider. In the last few years it
has been expanded to include the idea of providing enhanced service to a
particular class of data.<br>
These all had in common the manipulation of the data flow in the
network.<br>
Now is being proposed the idea that Net Neutrality includes business
relationships that don’t require direct manipulation of data flow in
the network. Zero rating is one example of this, but not the only
one. <br><br>
Is this is really a Net Neutrality issue or is it an example of an
innovative business offering?<br><br>
My view is that we still need flexibility to allow for innovation in
business practices of ISPs *and* edge providers.<br><br>
Chip<br><br>
<br>
On May 13, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
<<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This is an interesting read on
network neutrality from an African internet perspective. I would
summarise it as saying the principle is critical. How regulators apply it
has to be sensitive to local contexts. The writer is Steve Song.<br><br>
<a href="http://manypossibilities.net/2014/05/net-neutrality-in-africa/">
http://manypossibilities.net/2014/05/net-neutrality-in-africa/</a><br><br>
Anriette</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>