Hi Yana,


maybe if I make the point short and simple, we can arrive at the center of the discussion:

FCC: "We believe in net neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Netflix."
WMF: "We believe in net neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Wikimedia projects."

Right now, Wikipedia Zero and some other "good cause" apps are zero-rated because their civil society lobbyists made deals with some providers. Providers which have surely their own agenda for which they will use the "net neutrality exeption" which is established by Wikipedia Zero. There is no Internet Governance Rule which says "Free data has to transported for free."

This point is clear and trying to "control" the developing narrative is just wishful thinking with such a not-well-thought statement. We need alliances before this narrative will get out of control. The actual statement (even with small improvements) will just help to start a discussion we don't wanna have right now.

The point Dimi and I trying to make is that by not thinking this through we will get a not very helpful discussion with questions and startements like the following:

"Why should donation-financed data be transported zero-rated only because "it is made by the people for the people"?
"Shouldn't not all public data be zero-rated?"
"What are the standards and rules on that an organisation, a state or a developer can ask for being zero-rated?"
"Shouldn't also commercial tools which have a clear social entrepreneur attitude be zero-rated?"
"If the big Wikipedia gets zero-rated many little initiatives could have a disadvantage in the market of attention."
"The website of Greenpeace should also be zero-rated."

Providers will go ballistic when the discussion goes that way and then we will end up with the discovery that these providers never really understood the "icebreaking" role of Wikipedia Zero, meaning that all non-commercial data will result in no more money for the pipe and transmitter providers. They will very quickly remind us, that the "deal" was for Wikipedia Zero and for Wikipedia Zero only. And then we will have to decide which side we take.

So.

I like the idea that free data should be free for the people, also when it comes to question of transporting it. But how could we make such an undertaking happen? And if we can't, aren't we just betraying net neutrality and disguising it with some nice NGO-PR-wording?


Best regards

Jens



2014-04-25 8:18 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder <ywelinder@wikimedia.org>:
Hi Dimi,

Thanks for raising this topic at the Brussels meeting and for your summary of the arguments. I really appreciate the feedback. Please see my comments to each point below. 
  • Given the current active net neutrality debate in Europe, the US and Brazil the moment is really sensitive. This means that us publishing something will be preceived as advocacy and use by friends and foes alike.
While it is possible that portions of the op-ed could be taken out of context and used by net neutrality opponents, there is a greater risk that the same people could use Wikipedia Zero as an argument against net neutrality in a broader sense.  If we allow others to frame the narrative around Wikipedia Zero, they won't focus on the free knowledge mission that drives the project and makes it different from other projects in the net neutrality debate. We really need to communicate clearly that the purpose of Wikipedia Zero is to serve the public rather than any particular company. The op-ed is written in a way to make it difficult for our foes to use it and we've now revised it slightly to make it even more so. 
  • The "non-commercial" element of our position is not specified. What do we mean by it? Commercial services can be used non-commercially and vice-versa. We allow everyone to use our content commercially. That is what makes us special. Arguing "non-commercial" here can be very confusing.
"Non-commercial" is used to describe the zero-rating and not Wikipedia more broadly.  You are right that there is more to Wikipedia, including its freely licensed content that allows the content to be re-used by commercial as well as non-commercial projects. Given that this is only an op-ed about Wikipedia Zero, we can't get into the intricacies of Wikipedia. But we can formulate a more nuanced position about both Wikipedia Zero and our free licenses to be posted on wiki.  And we would love for this group to help us with that.
  • If Encarta Encyclopedia had done such deals before Wikipedia existed we might have never had a chance to succeed the way we did. Isn't there a risk of monopolising knowledge here? There is a reason we chose to provide data dumps that everyone can use to fork.
Generally, I don't think that getting free access to knowledge to areas that don't have any access will monopolize knowledge. Rather it will provide people with information about the world, which they can use to seek out more knowledge. Indeed, the structure of Wikipedia facilitates further exploration by providing direct links to other sources of information, including reference materials. 

The main purpose of Wikipedia Zero is to reduce barriers to accessing free knowledge. But to the extent that Wikipedia Zero also promotes Wikipedia, it is only one in a long line of initiatives to do so. Initiatives like editathons, offline distributions of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia-only apps may all potentially make it more difficult for projects to compete with Wikipedia. That does not mean that Wikipedia-focused initiatives are anti-competitive or violate net neutrality -- we continue to freely license Wikipedia, open source our infrastructure, and take many other approaches to distributing free knowledge in an open way. 
  • The tone of the statment is almost like saying: "We believe in net neutrality but we don't think it should apply to Wikimedia projects".
I appreciate you pointing this out and we've now tweaked the op-ed slightly to avoid that tone.  But the general message is that we think that net neutrality is incredibly important. The argument is that net neutrality should focus on things that pose a real threat to the free and open internet and not be misinterpreted to interfere with free access to knowledge when it is offered as a public good.

Best, 
Yana 



2014-04-24 1:29 GMT+02:00 Jens Best <jens.best@wikimedia.de>:

Hi Yana,


I'm too don't think that a line of limitation could be drawn i.e. at video-based non-commercial material. But this is the exact problem of your actual argumentation. By mentioning a few health apps it's not really becoming clear that the true challenge of possibly bringing Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality into an however argumented alliance lies in a more complex and yet to be started discussion which would go far beyond the edges of the Wikimedia Movement.

In the acknowledgement of the fact, that Wikipedia Zero is a crack in the principle of net neutrality as long as there is no discussion about totally excluding ALL non-commercial "good cause" content and make it zero-rated. Right now, to make this clear, Wikipedia Zero, apart all its good intentions, stays a questionable violation of the net neutrality principles.

When Wikipedia Zero and some surely helpful health apps are excluded you opening up a wide field of possible content which should also be zero-rated by all providers. I'm sure that this discussion will create a lot of resistance and counter-arguments from many different stakeholders. Are we prepared for this? Do we have support for this new and possibly great idea of making all open content zero-rated? Who in the international open web movement and beyond could support this idea? Which would be valuable arguments against it? And which stakeholders will bring them with what intensions?

I'm, like you, convinced that we have to have this discussion, and that Wikipedia Zero can be a good example for leading the case. But right now I don't see much broad support for this case, so it could stay the impression that Wikimedia is trying to cleverly argue only for its own non-commercial product, Wikipedia Zero. It's an endeavour in a very sensitive field which is central to many parts of the Open Web movement.

I'm right now not convinced that WMF presents a well-thought strategy to start this process. Net neutrality is still under heavy attack by a variety of stakeholders around the world. It is actually right now taken out of the declaration process at NetMundial in Brazil against the will of the civil society. So, with all good faith in the great idea of bringing Free Knowledge to as many people as possible, we should be very very careful not treading on principles which assure the very basic groundwork of everything an Open and Free Web relys on.

Looking forward to a broader discussion on that subject.

best regards

Jens Best


2014-04-23 7:11 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder <ywelinder@wikimedia.org>:

Hi Jens, 

Thanks for your thoughtful email.  

I'd love if we could respond to Marco Civil (or anything else) that quickly.  :)  We have been working on this for quite some time, researching the topic and consulting with net neutrality scholars to make sure that we had a nuanced position on this question. The op-ed is not so much a response to Marco Civil, as it is a response to the fact that net neutrality rules are starting to be considered by countries that are relevant to Wikipedia Zero. We have been approached by advocacy groups about how we see Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate. This piece would be our response. It also seeks to clarify how Wikipedia Zero is different from various sponsored data programs, as we've heard that the project is sometimes misrepresented and used as an argument for other types of exceptions.

As to where to draw the line, I don't think we would want to limit a non-commercial exception to Wikipedia Zero and the health app.  They were just presented as concrete examples of non-commercial initiatives.  But I'm also not sure why we would want to draw the line at video based educational material. That is really not the kind of thing that the net neutrality principle was intended to protect against. 

Thanks, 
Yana


On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jens Best <jens.best@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi Yana,


that was a quick response, but then again it was well expected that the Marco Civil da Internet would be passed by the Brazilian Senado Federal today.

Exceptions are often the first crack in principles which should be hold in respect. Clearly there is a conflict of interest rising on the horizon for the Free Knowledge Movement. You mention correctly that Wikipedia Zero isn't the only data which is transported zero-rated. Besides other non-commercial tools for free knowledge or different life improving aspects there are also commercial deals between providers and content producers (i.e. in Germany you get Spotify zero-rated by Deutsche Telekom when signing a special deal. A clever marketing-tricky way to destroy net neutrality).

So how can non-commercial data helping to better the world by being excluded in the future out of the very clear principles of net neutrality without creating an overly complex global discussion or even get Wikipedia misused by mobile/cloud providers as an "icebreaker" making people getting used to zero-rated "special deals"?

Should it be zero-rated in every country? Also in many European countries many people can't afford a proper data-tariff or even a "smart" phone. Isn't it also a shame that these people can't have free access to Free Knowledge and other non-commercial life-improving tools?

Where can we draw the line in the future? What about video-based free education? Maybe even free non-commercial education videos on youtube or another commercial video platform (or cc-licenced videos on wikiversity)?

All these and many more text-, audio- or video-based non-commercial tools, and I quote you on that, create "more opportunities for creative services that empower users, raise standards of living, and bring transparency and accountability to government through free delivery of information." - If we wanna stand for a well-argued point of view on that, it's not enough to mention some (non-commercial) health apps which surely deserves the same treatment than a Free-Knowldege-tool like Wikipedia Zero.

To sum it up for today, we have to have some exchange of thoughts about i.e. senseful limitations of and global regulations for zero-rating non-commercial tools and what role Wikipedia Zero will play in this discussion. If Wikipedia Zero should be the spearhead for zero-rating "open internet"-related non-commercial tools which are "for a good cause" then there has to be more talk with the whole internet movement about this - otherwise all this could look more like a not so well-thought argumentation for keeping especially Wikipedia Zero out of the net neutrality principle. This appearance should be avoided. A community discussion about that should definitely be prior to any maybe misleading statements by the foundation.

If we, to quote you again, "continue to develop a position on Wikipedia Zero", of course, we will inevitably present a public advocacy position on net neutrality thereby. So let's talk about it.


best regards

Jens Best


--
Präsidium - Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best@wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. 
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.



2014-04-23 3:58 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder <ywelinder@wikimedia.org>:
Hi all, 

Earlier today, the Senate in Brazil passed the Marco Civil bill, that has some ambiguous provisions on net neutrality. It was passed on urgent basis in anticipation of NetMundial, a meeting on internet governance that will be held in Brazil tomorrow and Thursday.

We have prepared an op-ed (see below) explaining how certain types of net neutrality laws impact Wikipedia Zero, and we will try to get it published around the closing of NetMundial. The purpose of this op-ed is to make sure that there is an accurate portrayal of Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality debate, particularly in countries that are relevant to this project. 

While we don't plan to take a direct advocacy position on net neutrality at this point, we will continue to develop a position on Wikipedia Zero. We would therefore like to hear your thoughts on this topic.

Best, 
Yana

---


Free Access to Knowledge Should Not Be a Net Neutrality Issue


In recent months, lawmakers around the world have been considering net neutrality rules that aim to preserve the Internet’s original promise as an open forum. But certain provisions of net neutrality laws could threaten the free spread of information in surprising ways.  In particular, such provisions could prevent non-commercial initiatives like Wikipedia Zero from providing truly free access to the online encyclopedia in the Global South. Legislators must be careful to avoid these unintended consequences.


Net neutrality advocates are right to be concerned that forcing users to pay for faster data delivery could easily push small and non-commercial publishers and content creators out of the market. Since its inception, a key tenet of the Internet has been equal treatment of data from all sources: Internet service providers must deliver content from blogs or startups with the same speed as content from major media companies or huge tech firms.  Allowing Internet service providers to charge more for faster delivery of certain kinds of content would favor players with deep pockets, who could then muscle out smaller competitors. But to date the discussion has largely ignored a potential pitfall: might certain provisions of net neutrality laws unintentionally hamper the free flow of information they seek to protect?


Just consider the net neutrality law passed by the Netherlands in 2012, sometimes presented as a model for legislation elsewhere. The Dutch Telecommunications Act aims to enforce net neutrality, in part, by prohibiting ISPs from charging subscribers different rates based on the services they access, for example VoIP or instant messaging. However the Dutch law would also prohibit ISPs from providing free access to certain sites, as they would technically be charging different rates (in this case, nothing) for different services.


It’s worth noting that not all net neutrality rules include these provisions: the FCC's previous Open Internet Rules, for example, simply focused on prohibiting blocking and unreasonable discrimination against content providers. Similarly, the current version of the pending Marco Civil bill in Brazil does not prohibit paid or free Internet connection as long as ISPs do not monitor, filter, or block the content of data packets. But the Dutch law, and any laws modeled on it, might interfere with initiatives that rely on zero-rated data, like the “Wikipedia Zero” program across the Global South, which essentially aims to have all carriers in a given country zero-rate Wikipedia so it can become a true public good, with unfettered access for everyone.


When carriers commit to waiving data fees, Wikipedia Zero can provide schoolchildren with a virtual encyclopedia in places where they don’t have access to books or libraries, spread practical knowledge about agriculture, sanitation, and wellness, and deliver outside information to people living under repressive regimes. Eventually Wikipedia Zero will extend to free editing of entries as well, empowering users in developing countries with a platform for free speech.


Wikipedia Zero isn’t the only free service that could suffer from specific provisions of some net neutrality laws. The Refugees United mobile app allows victims of political upheavals and natural disasters to find lost family members and friends free of cost, also relying on zero-rated data. And Mobilium Africa’s Smart Health app, launched in September 2013, aims to educate Android users in Africa about HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, including prevention, symptoms, and treatment, for free.


These initiatives are just the beginning: as the cost of mobile handsets falls and mobile penetration rises across the developing world, there will be even more opportunities for creative services that empower users, raise standards of living, and bring transparency and accountability to government through free delivery of information. Yet all these current and future initiatives could be undone by a few lines of legislation – inadvertently thwarting free access to information in the name of the free Internet.


Net neutrality is undoubtedly a major concern. As lawmakers craft new rules they must take care not to unintentionally hinder the very cause they are trying to advance. Net neutrality rules should focus on enshrining the “end-to-end” principle, which states that Internet service providers do not distinguish between data flowing over the network based on its application or content.  Net neutrality rules should not prevent the zero-rating of non-commercial initiatives, like Wikipedia Zero, that do not pay for any preferential treatment and do not interfere with the open Internet.



--
Yana Welinder
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867

NOTICE: For legal reasons, I may only serve as a lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors




_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors





_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors




--
--
Jens Best
Präsidium

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best@wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. 
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors



_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors




--
Yana Welinder
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 
6867

NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I may only serve as a lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors




--
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best@wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. 
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.