[kictanet] [isoc_ke] Here I go again on Net Neutrality

Wed Feb 11 10:52:52 EAT 2015

Ali, my layman's view is ... we approach a member of parliament to sponsor
a private members bill. At least that is what I see some guys approach it.
We up our game.

But then ... we need to have a set of principles we are championing. Thus
the draft paper should be ready by then.

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson

On 11 February 2015 at 07:55, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:

> Mwendwa
>
> Maybe the problem is how we are approaching this issue?
>
> What can we do better to engage all stakeholders on this issue?
>
> Would be nice to hear from the Government side - even if it's from a
> private citizen capacity.
>
> *Ali Hussein*
>
> +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
>
> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>
> Skype: abu-jomo
>
> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
> <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>
> Blog: www.alyhussein.com
>
> "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will
> have a generation of idiots".  ~ Albert Einstein
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
> wrote:
>
> It is sad that Kenya considers itself a leader on ICT, yet we have lagged
> way behind on two Key policy issues 1. Net Neutrality and 2. Intermediary
> liabilities.
>
> I shared the South African ICT policy framework sometimes back on this
> list that had a definite policy direction in Net Neutrality. Did we drop
> the ball by not championing this issues on the ICT Master plan?
>
> I support Ali's thinking to have a cross community round table and develop
> a paper ... then lobby for it to be adopted as a standard framework.
> Challenge is bringing all the relevant stakeholders on the table.
>
> Regards
>
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>
>
> On 9 February 2015 at 10:52, Joly MacFie via isoc <isoc at lists.my.co.ke>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In some ways we are all talked out on NN in the US, and are just waiting
>> for it to get done already so we can move on! And it has indeed become
>> something of a political football. But through the chaff there appear
>> occasional pearls - such as
>> this regulatory analysis (posted
>> <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2015/02/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/0:38/20150208143818:0633E850-AFCA-11E4-8AE1-86185DAFC17C/>
>> to By Dr Jonathan S. Shapiro to Dave Farber's IP list yesterday):
>>
>> The internet *does* need regulation, but not the kind of protectionist
>> regulation that has historically been associated with Title II. The
>> regulation that we need falls in several areas:
>>
>> 1. *Prohibiting* local monopolies on cable and internet services. As new
>> delivery technologies emerge, new providers should not be hampered by
>> incumbents, nor by the need to negotiate with every state, county, city,
>> house, and outhouse to establish a right to offer service. A common
>> national standard would go a long way.
>>
>> 2. Defining pricing schemas and requiring liberal interconnection at
>> internet exchange points. Comcast should not be forced to lease its
>> facilities, but it *should* be forced to interconnect its networks with
>> those of others and carry their traffic, subject only to a uniform pricing
>> policy.
>>
>> 3. Enforcing a clear layer boundary between the "internet as a transport"
>> and the 'internet as a carrier of services" concept. There are valid and
>> necessary reasons at the transport layer for operators to engage in network
>> traffic management for *operational* reasons. But at that level there is
>> also an obligation to send the end user's packets where they are supposed
>> to go, without favoring one over another inappropriately. It is reasonable
>> to define service classes providing distinct "shapes" of packet service
>> guarantee, but the billing structure and operational treatment of packets
>> within a class must be uniform.
>>
>> 4. A regulatory guarantee must be made that customer traffic will not be
>> modified or tampered with beyond the requirements of implementing the
>> standard and accepted protocol definitions. Verizon's "super cookie" should
>> properly be framed as a violation of wiretap statutes or something like
>> them. The principal here is that a carrier does *not* have a right to
>> modify, examine, or record the traffic of its customers in the absence of
>> customer consent or the lawful order of a judge, issued through an openly
>> accountable process in compliance with the constitution and the law. Some
>> adaptation of that principal is required to deal with network-based attacks
>> and legitimate operational issues.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> isoc mailing list
>> isoc at lists.my.co.ke
>> http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20150211/48f9dad5/attachment.htm>