Hello "List", first of all I'm admitting fully and heartfelt that I've not been reading any part of the report mentioned (apart from the extracts presented on this list)...
However, I raise my voice at this moment as I'm suspecting (given we all want to reach an audience beyond this list) that this is pointing to a fundamental problem. The problem being that the intricate details of any proposed legislation, report, inquiry or system are all so complex that they more than often shadow the the broader basic questions.
How do we support: genuine freedom of speech, the infrastructure to sustain it, the availability of "uncontrolled" utilisation of said infrastructure etc. In short: how do we keep internet decentralised yet not nationalised? Distributed as it was built (and in my mind), intended to be.
With what seems to be potentially catastrophic changes being made to the core management of the internet. I can't but feel that the energy of this discussion is directed the wrong way. Please correct me if I'm erroneous.
Best, Jonas
On 2012-12-07 20:34, Erik Josefsson wrote:
I agree. In particular wrt point two, I think it would be good to remind the authors of what we said in the 2010 November ACTA resolution, and repeated ever after, that we reminded
"the Commission that it is precluded by the 2003 Inter-Institutional Agreement from supporting self- and co-regulatory mechanisms where fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, are at stake". http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=ACTA%2FNovember_diffs&diff=15711&oldid=15710You're simply not allowed to abandon fundamental rights to be upheld by voluntary commercial agreements. Kind of Rule of Law basics.
There were a couple of traffic managements amendments floating around in the Telecoms Package, but they never took off, maybe you like AM2 and AM7 (from a non-supported AM-package)?
http://euwiki.org/2002/22/EC/THIRD_READING_TARGET/AmendmentsBest regards.
//Erik
On 12/07/12 18:30, James Losey wrote:
We're both looking at the same report. While the report does not some problems transparency, I didn't see it provide other concrete solutions.
Recommendations for Government and the European Commission (from p. 8/51)
1 Need to consider ways to expand the existing regulatory framework by the principles of nonblocking and non-discrimination to ensure the internet remains an open platform 2 If a self-regulatory or co-regulatory solution is a preferred option, it must have a robust, builtin compliance and enforcement mechanism alongside independent verification, oversight and sanctions, complaint handling and redressThe report aslo recommends OfCom work on methods to compare traffic management between services, rather than work on restricting types of traffic management that will be harmful to the open internet.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Linus Nordberg <linus@nordberg.se mailto:linus@nordberg.se> wrote:
Vilken rapport syftar du på? Jag har inte läst hela rapporten från Consumer Focus, men får intrycket att den tvärtom är kritisk till de som påstår att transparens skulle lösa alla problem The findings of the research showed that increased transparency for traffic management alone is unlikely to safeguard effectively the principle of the open internet and prevent discriminatory restrictions online. (s. 5) Yet policy makers believe increased transparency about the term can safeguard the principle of the open internet, drive switching and enhance competition in the broadband market. (s. 4) Yet these efforts to improve transparency raise concerns. Specifically, there are questions over: ●● consumers’ ability to understand and determine the extent of traffic management practices, and their impact on their internet access ●● which part of the online chain is at fault (for example, broadband provider, content provider or end users’ equipment and software) ●● what is genuine traffic management and what is unfair practice (s. 5) James Losey <jameswlosey@gmail.com <mailto:jameswlosey@gmail.com>> wrote Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:44:20 +0100: | A major problem with this report is the suggestion that transparency is a | sufficient approach to addressing concerns over network management. | | J | | On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Patrik Wallström <pawal@blipp.com <mailto:pawal@blipp.com>> wrote: | | > Brittiska Consumer Focus har sammanställt en undersökning av konsumenters | > uppfattning av operatörers traffic management. Åtminstone summeringen är | > intressant att läsa för den oinsatte: | > | > | > http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2012/11/Lost-on-the-broadband-super-highway.pdf> | > "Overall, our research found that consumers | > have very limited awareness of the term ‘traffic | > management’. Consumers do not understand the | > term, find it difficult to access relevant information | > and, when they do, struggle to understand it. | > The research indicated that without explaining | > traffic management and its impact on the user | > experience, any information provided is not | > meaningful to consumers and is therefore not | > taken into consideration. The research found no | > difference in perceived transparency between | > BSG and non-BSG signatories." | > | > ... | > | >