<div dir="ltr">Hello Oliver,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><a title="isolatedn@gmail.com" href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian
Muthusamy</a> said:</font></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> One question: If Telcos are not interested
in the grid, wouldn't there be other infrastructure players interested in the
grid? If non-traditional players set their eyes on the Grid with one of the
new business models (for e.g Google's business model or a social networking
portal's business model) it would be all the more to the disadvantage to the
Telcos.</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </div></blockquote>
</div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">Indeed. But without Telcos, there is no
Internet. </div></div></blockquote><div><br>At present, yes. And yes, to a large extent. But can the Telcos afford to ignore available and emerging alternate technologies and trends? Can you afford not to take note of WiFi (At the OECD theme pavilion there was a 3 GIGA bps working WiFi installation to enable a user to download a DVD quality movie in under 10 seconds), Cable, Satellite or even the possibility of the social entrepreneurs of the world coming together to create a terrestrial pipeline dedicated for the Next Generation network employing such advanced grade fiber optic submarine and inland wiring? Worse, what if that that dedicated pipeline starts offering Voice at lower prices?<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">
The wisest way about this, is to establish concensus with the Telcos
involved, and this is likely to bring some concessions from both sides. With new
bandwidth hungry services, there seems to be a chasm opening up between legacy
operators & new entrants. This needs to be bridged. How? Through
negotiation. Today, each side is making its own stance known, however extreme.
Examples abound about one-sided actions. Ideally, there should be a deal struck
by all parties. I hope that this will be possible.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>A balance would be for Telcos to think of models whereby they would leave the "essential" internet free of commercial considerations and segregate areas such as DVD movies or high-bandwidth peer to peer for commercial models. It would be a lengthy debate to set out to define "essential" internet from the premium? use. I am not sure if the Internet Community would like to be drawn to the negotiating table with the Telcos. And I don't know if delinking DVD movies and Casino Games from "essential" or "lifeline" Internet is in line with the Internet Model to be preserved.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div class="Ih2E3d">
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr">><font face="Arial" size="2">- Better be late than
wrong</font></div><font face="Arial" size="2">
<div dir="ltr"><br>>policy change seems to take so long. Ultimately, there is
enough collective <br>>for the right decision to be taken. Make sure it
stays that way. <br><br>Why? Shouldn't the Internet policy be rather
adaptable? Shouldn't the the technical architecture be engineered to
accommodate constant improvements? Or is there something that I have missed in
this point?</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div></font></blockquote>
</div><div dir="ltr">"wisdom" is the word missing from your quote. Collective wisdom.
Policies will adapt with time, but only collective wisdom should prevail. I am
saying: make sure collective wisdom remains the leading force in the concensus.
I agree with your points.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>For the collective wisdom to prevail, it is important to ensure that the body of opinions that build the consensus that could be awarded the status of "collective wisdom" is constituted with equal participants from all quarters represented with a balance. In today's political system seats around the discussion tables are taken by the traditionally influential and loud interests and lobbies, so how would the Internet Community ensure that the inevitable positions by the dominant parties around the table does not get dubbed as "collective wisdom"? I would say that a fair mechanism needs to be arrived at to lead to the collective wisdom and that collective wisdom has to prevail in all policy decisions.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div dir="ltr"></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div dir="ltr">And what about user-centricity? And user participation in shaping
the Internet? Internet as a global infrastructure owned by none? Or by owned
by the User?</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div></blockquote>
</div><div>Define "Internet". Define "own". Are we speaking infrastructure?
Equipment? Data? Information? Services? Web sites? Intellectual property?
Subscribers? Do we really need to define who owns what?</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I will skip definitions to keep it short. <br><br>1. User-centricity is central. It is not something to be referred to as a passing reference<br>
<br>2. On who owns what: Here is a hint of what I wish to say. The cable companies own the wires. I am the user and I OWN THE INTERNET. <br><br>Thank you.<br>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy<br>-- <br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy">http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy</a><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div><br> </div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div dir="ltr">Good luck,</div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">O.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">-- <br>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D.<br>E-mail:<<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>> | <a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html" target="_blank">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy">http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy</a><br>
</div>