[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero specifically excepted from ban of zero-rating services in Chile

Thu Oct 16 18:25:21 UTC 2014

Hello Yana, 

I apologise to you if my actions were interpreted as a breach of trust. I was under the impression that our conversation and the information you mentioned were part of the public discussion about Wikipedia Zero which took place at Wikimania14.

It was not my understanding that even the existence of certain information should not be mentioned to our community. Particularly when this information is the basis for political actions of the Foundation in foreign countries. With the active engagement of the Foundation in regulatory affairs in Chile I was acting under the believe that at least the transparency standards of FOI would apply. 

Best Regards, 
Thomas 

On 16 Oct 2014, at 19:18 , Yana Welinder <ywelinder at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Thomas, 
> 
> As other lists members have written here before, this mailing list serves an important purpose for us to get input from Wikimedians. 
> 
> But if you or anyone at EDRi would like to reach out to me, I'm happy to continue discussing this with you. I'd be particularly happy to do so if I know that my words will not get twisted at a later time (e.g. I told you that I would discuss the Wikipedia Zero team whether the criteria for how we identify target countries makes sense and did not promise to make particular criteria public). 
> 
> Best, 
> Yana
> 
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Lohninger <thomas.lohninger at netzfreiheit.org> wrote:
> It is almost a month since this thread died. I would really like to know answers to my questions. 
> 
> What are the criteria for countries that can have Wikipedia Zero?
> 
> What is the legal formula by which the foundation intends to distinct Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero? 
> 
> Looking forward to a good and respectful discussion. 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> Thomas 
> 
> On 24 Sep 2014, at 17:40 , Thomas Lohninger <thomas.lohninger at netzfreiheit.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Yana, 
>> 
>> On 23 Sep 2014, at 2:26 , Yana Welinder <ywelinder at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the open internet.  Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to information for no apparent reason. 
>> 
>> The dutch national legislations[1] prevents Zero-Rating, as does the Norwegian Soft-law[2] which was by the way the first  provision ever on the field of net neutrality. The Telecom Single Market EU regulation about net neutrality would also prohibit these practises. But because of the actions of the foundation we will have a much harder position to keep these provisions in the fight in the council. 
>> 
>> Excluding Zero-Rating from the issue of net neutrality is really not a good start for a debate, assuming you want a debate. I know in the US things are viewed differently and Zero-Rating is perceived to be a minor problem. But should the US really set the standard in this issue with their oligopoly in the ISP market and aggressive Zero-Rating products like AT&T’s sponsored data? [3]
>> 
>>> 
>>> Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't operate under similar principles. 
>> 
>> About these operating principles. On Wikimania we discussed the criteria that determine in which countries Wikipedia Zero can be offered. The discussion about W0 is always connected to the global south and giving access to people in under-developed-telecommunications markets. To paraphrase: make the wikipedia knowledge base and brand accessible to people that otherwise couldn’t effort it. Yana told me that there are internal criteria the Foundation uses to determine whether a country is under-developed enough for a roll-out of Wikipedia Zero. You promised to make those criteria public to ease the debate. What is the time table for their release? 
>> 
>> On a connected issue, are there plans to remove Wikipedia Zero from countries which reach a development state which would no longer require this type of subsidy? 
>> 
>> The price difference between voice-only and voice+1GB/month plans with movistar.cl is 30%… 
>> 
>>> 
>>> With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception. He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit healthcare apps.
>> 
>> If I understand you correctly the national regulatory authority will now decide on a case by case basis whether Zero-Rating is allowed for a particular service in Chile or not. Again, we discussed at Wikimania that the Foundation is still working on distinction criteria between Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero. The four criteria[4] which were release prior to Wikimania were heavily criticised[5] by several actors working on a policy level with net neutrality and to my knowledge never were discussed internally or externally prior to their release by the Foundation. 
>> 
>> To sum this up, SUBTEL now has to job you failed at. To determine how to allow W0, but to prevent F0? 
>> 
>> For Facebook it makes a lot of sense to just wait and let Wikipedia Zero remove all legal safeguards against Zero-Rating and then follow on their foot steps into formerly protected markets. 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this month: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208 
>> 
>> It is one thing to have a service you are convinced of and ignoring criticism from your own community. But to actively fight laws that ensure the principle which made Wikipedias success possible in the first place, that’s just outrageously short-sided. 
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards, 
>> Thomas
>> 
>> PS: I really hope we can have an orderly debate on this important issue. There has to be mutual ground. 
>> 
>>> Best, 
>>> Yana
>> 
>> [1] https://www.bof.nl/2011/06/27/translations-of-key-dutch-internet-freedom-provisions/
>> [2] see Guidelines for Internet neutrality by the Norwegian Post and telecommunications Authority Principle 3: 
>> Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address.
>> * This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that
>> [3] http://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html
>> [4] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/
>> [5] https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open
>> 
>> ==============================
>> Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit
>> Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
>> 
>> Thomas Lohninger
>> : www.netzfreiheit.org
>> : thomas.lohninger at netzfreiheit.org
>> : +43 (0) 6801238611
>> 
>> : GPG Fingerprint  socialhack.eu/gpg.pub 
>> : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 
>> : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
>> 
> 
> ==============================
> Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit
> Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
> 
> Thomas Lohninger
> : www.netzfreiheit.org
> : thomas.lohninger at netzfreiheit.org
> : +43 (0) 6801238611
> 
> : GPG Fingerprint  socialhack.eu/gpg.pub 
> : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 
> : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

==============================
Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit
Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter

Thomas Lohninger
: www.netzfreiheit.org
: thomas.lohninger at netzfreiheit.org
: +43 (0) 6801238611

: GPG Fingerprint  socialhack.eu/gpg.pub 
: 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 
: 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20141016/1c7f0e69/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20141016/1c7f0e69/attachment-0001.pgp>