[Chapter-delegates] What are the characteristics of theInternet tobe preserved ?

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Oliver,

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

>  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com> said:
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> Indeed. But without Telcos, there is no Internet.
>

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?


> 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.
>

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.

 >- Better be late than wrong
>
> >policy change seems to take so long. Ultimately, there is enough
> collective
> >for the right decision to be taken. Make sure it stays that way.
>
> 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?
>
>
> "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.
>

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.

>  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?
>
>
> 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?
>

I will skip definitions to keep it short.

1. User-centricity is central. It is not something to be referred to as a
passing reference

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.

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy

>
>
>
Good luck,
>
> O.
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D.
> E-mail:<ocl at gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>



-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20080908/24994805/attachment.htm>