[Chapter-delegates] ISOC open letter

[Richard Hill]

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for this.

Please see embedded comments below.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
> bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-
> delegates
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2021 17:32
> To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC open letter
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:29:15AM +0200, Richard Hill via Chapter-
> delegates wrote:
> >
> >Wouldn't it also be normal to consult with the membership before
> signing
> >such a letter?
> 
> No, it would not.  First, a consultation about the Internet Way of
> Networking happened through our PDP; it is a staff job to undertake the
> work in detail in this case, and so that's what's happening.  

Well, this is a matter of interpreting and applying the Internet Way of
Networking. And in any case, I think that it would be of interest to the
Chapters to be made aware of what the staff is doing before it is actually
done.

<Second, it
> is just not possible to consult with the whole membership (or even some
> subset of it) within the time frame and media strategy required for this
> sort of effort in addressing the actions of any government.  

I agree that in some cases a very short deadline would be required. But it
seems to me that, in this case, a one-week notice would have been feasible.

>Finally, in
> most cases (maybe all), the membership will not fall under the
> jurisdiction of the country being approached; so it is not clear that
> such a consultation will result in any response, or one that is
> adequately informed about the situation of the country in question so as
> to contribute meaninfully in such a consultation.

That may or may not be the case. There might be people living outside Canada
that follow Canadian matters. And there might be people who might comment on
the general issue raised.

> 
> >Which provisions of the bill directly attack which parts of the
> "Internet
> >Way of Networking"?
> 
> The bill is in part trying to convert the treatment of at least parts of
> the Internet from a general-purpose network into a broadcast medium.

I think that you mean that the bill proposes to apply broadcast medium
regulation to certain services provided over the Internet that, up to now,
were not regulated in that way.

As I've said before, the Internet Way of Networking appears to me to apply
mainly to infrastructure, so it is not obvious to me that it can be easily
applied to high-level services such as social networks or e-commerce
platforms.

As we all know, offline law applies equally online. So, for example,
consumer protection law applies to e-commerce platforms.

Regarding the issue at hand, if some company uses the Internet to provide
what is in effect a broadcast service, then it might make sense to regulate
that service just like any other broadcast service.

For example, in Switzerland users can access the "normal" TV channels via
conventional antennas, satellite receivers, cable, or Internet. The
transmissions over Internet are regulated exactly the same as those over the
other media.

> The only practical ways anyone has been able to understand most of the
> provisions (and they're not all in the bill, because a number of the
> rules would actually have to be made up by the CRTC after the bill
> became law) involves mucking with the operation of networks themselves
> in order to implement the goals.  

Could you be more precise? What sort of "mucking"?

>This problem got a lot worse with an
> amendment that was introduced by the Minister in committee (so the first
> reading version online doesn't contain it yet).  

Where can I find that amendment?

SNIP