|

Input Document on Network Neutrality

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Input Document on Network Neutrality

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 This Input Document has been developed through an open and multistakeholder process facilitated by the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN). The process has been initiated with a Request for Comments aimed at the development of one or more Policy Statement(s) on Net Neutrality. The process has been promoted by members of the DCNN and the Global Net Neutrality Coalition (GNN), and aimed at the definition of an agreed position on net neutrality, based on the Model Framework on Network Neutrality developed by the DCNN.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 The DCNN Model Framework (MF) was presented at the 8th IGF in Bali and included in a Report on “Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality” delivered to the Council of Europe Steering Committee on Media and Information Society to be used as a working document for the elaboration of a Draft Recommendation on Net Neutrality. To date, DCNN members have conveyed the MF to several Parliamentary assemblies (EU Parliament, Argentinian Senate and South Korean Parliament) whilst the GNN has decided to utilise the MF as “Model Rules”. Although it has already played an inspirational role, the MF has never been officially validated by the IGF community at-large, as pointed out by the Final Chair’s Summary of the IGF 2014, according to which “[t]he ninth IGF concluded with looking at the role of the IGF in taking the network neutrality discussion forward. […] The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality will continue the discussions leading up to the 2015 meeting, but the view was also held that there was a need to develop a process that allowed the entire IGF community to weigh in and validate the findings of the Dynamic Coalition.”

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 This lack of validation is primarily due to the lack of an official process aimed at discussing dynamic coalitions’ outcomes within the IGF community. The IGF 2015 will introduce for the first time a main session allowing dynamic coalitions to present their work to the broader community, thus contributing to the definition tangible IGF outputs, as recommended by the CSTD Working Group for IGF Improvement. The development of a Policy Statement on Network Neutrality is consistent with the Chair’s Summary and aims at feeding the main session on dynamic coalitions’ outcomes with a concrete proposal.

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 The Policy Statement on Network Neutrality has been elaborated through several rounds of consultation, organised from the beginning of May to the end of September 2015. According to DC NN Rules of Procedure, two drafters have been designated in order to “manage the elaboration of the position or statement and consolidate received comments with the aim of achieving a consensus document.”

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 The two designated drafters were:

  • 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0
  • Luca Belli, DCNN Co-Chair and Researcher at the Center for Technology & Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro
  • Michał Woźniak, Warsaw Hackerspace and Polish Linux Users Group

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0  

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Policy Statement on Network Neutrality

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Preamble

  1. 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0
  2. The Internet should be open, secure and accessible to all people.
  3. Network Neutrality plays an instrumental role in preserving Internet openness; fostering the enjoyment of Internet users’ human rights; promoting competition and equality of opportunity; safeguarding the generative peer-to-peer nature of the Internet; and spreading the benefits of the Internet to all people.
  4. Managing Internet traffic in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner compatible with the Network Neutrality Principle serves the interests of the public by preserving a level playing field with minimal barriers to entry and by providing equal opportunity for the invention and development of new applications, services and business models.
  5. Competition among broadband networks, technologies and all players of the Internet ecosystem is essential to ensure the openness of the Internet.
  6. All individuals and stakeholders should have the possibility to participate in the elaboration of any Network Neutrality regulatory instrument.

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Network Neutrality regulatory instruments should, at a minimum, provide the following safeguards.

  1. 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0
  2. Network Neutrality Principle

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Network Neutrality is the principle according to which Internet traffic is treated without unreasonable discrimination, restriction or interference regardless of its sender, recipient, type or content.

  1. 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0
  2. Reasonable Traffic Management

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 Internet service providers should act in accordance with the Network Neutrality Principle. Any deviation from this principle may be considered as reasonable traffic management as long as it is necessary and proportionate to:

  1. 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0
  2. preserve network security and integrity;
  3. mitigate the effects of temporary and exceptional congestion, primarily by means of protocol-agnostic measures or, when these measures do not prove practicable, by means of protocol-specific measures;
  4. prioritise emergency services in the case of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
  1. 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0
  2. Law Enforcement

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 None of the foregoing should prevent Internet service providers from giving force to a court order or a legal provision in accordance with human rights norms and international law.

  1. 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0
  2. Transparent Traffic Management

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Internet service providers should publish meaningful and transparent information on characteristics and conditions of the Internet access services they offer, the connection speeds that are to be provided, and their traffic management practices, notably with regard to how Internet access services may be affected by simultaneous usage of other services provided by the Internet service provider.

  1. 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0
  2. Privacy

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 All players in the Internet value chain, including governments, shall provide robust and meaningful privacy protections for individuals’ data in accordance with human rights norms and international law. In particular, any techniques to inspect or analyse Internet traffic shall be in accordance with privacy and data protection obligations and subject to clear legal protections.

  1. 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0
  2. Implementation

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 The competent national authorities should promote independent testing of Internet traffic management practices, ensure the availability of Internet access and evaluate the compatibility of Internet access policies with the Network Neutrality Principle as well as with the respect of human rights norms and international law. National authorities should publicly report their findings. Complaint procedures to address network neutrality violations should be available and violations should attract appropriate fines.

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 All individuals and stakeholders should have the possibility to contribute to the detection, reporting and correction of violations of the Network Neutrality Principle

27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0  

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0  

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 List of Contributors

30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 This Input Document has been elaborated thanks to the contributions of the following individuals and organisations. Contributors are listed based on the chronological order of their participation in the elaboration of this document.

  • 31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0
  • Luca Belli, Fundação Getulio Vargas (co-drafter)
  • Michal Wozniak, Polish Linux Users Group (co-drafter)
  • Gonzalo Lopez-Barajas, Telefonica
  • Eduardo Chomali, ASIET
  • Chris Riley, Mozilla
  • Jeremy Malcolm, EFF
  • Abhik Chaudhuri, Tata Consultancy
  • Lorenzo Pupillo, Telecom Italia
  • Grupo Usuarios de Interent en Ecuados
  • ACCESS
  • Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change
  • Facebook
  • Chris Marsden, Sussex University
  • Konstantinos Stylianou, Leeds University
  • William Ametozion, Network Engineer
  • Kamumuri Sraju, entrepreneur and technologist
  • Ekenda Lamsal, ICT Expert, dedicated to #ICT4DNepal
  • Nathalia Foditsch, American University
  • Greg Shatan, Abelman Frayne & Schwab
  • Brandt Dainow, iMedia Connection
  • Seth Johnson, Internet Distinction
  • Sudeep KC, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
  • Frode Sorensen, Norwegian Communications Authority
  • TechFreedom
  • Roslyn Layton, Aalborg University
  • John Laprise, Consulting Scholar
  • Christopher Wilkinson
  • Vint Cerf, Google
  • Cellular Operator Association of India
  • European Digital Rights
  • Judith Hellerstein, University of Maryland
  • Richard Hill, Association for Proper Internet Governance
  • Fastweb
  • European Broadcasting Union
  • Chip Sharp, Cisco Systems
  • Louise Nasak, Individual Consultancy Group
  • Erik Joseffson, European Parliament
  • Alejandro Pisanty, Autonomous University of Mexico
  • Public Knowledge
  • Jozef Halbersztadt, Internet Society Poland
  • Chris Wilson, 21st Century Fox

32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0  

33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 NOTE: Contribution to the process does not imply validation. The Input Document will be discussed during the IGF Main Session on dynamic coalitions’ outcomes, in order to allow the entire IGF Community to validate it.

Page 26

Source: http://review.intgovforum.org/igf-2015/dynamic-coalitions/input-document-on-network-neutrality/