CIVIL SOCIETY
WORKING GROUP on FINANCING MECHANISMS
TRANSIT AGREEMENTS.
One of the main reason of the high access cost to the Internet in develloping countries,
is that ISPs in those countries do have agreements with other ISPs in advanced
countries that follow commercial logics that are very ill-suited to bridge
the digital divide.
Therefore, it is called that equitable ( or even advantageous to
develloping countries as a form of a specific aid ) agreements be
concluded between all ISPs, whether public or private.
This is a question of governance.
Since it is clear from the WGIG
Peering and Interconnection
draft document, that the business sector would not agree to a state-controlled regulatory
framework as proposed by ICAIS,
it could be recommanded the creation
of a multi-stakeholder UN commission or better a
UN-endorsed multi-stakeholder partnership ( states, private sector,
civil society ) that could enforce a control within its members and
have some moral influence on those who are not members.
This MSP could write
a "good practice" charter, and would
issue warnings and recommandations to all concerned
stakeholders in cases the agreement appears
to be unequitable.
Excerpts from
Alan Levin presentation about IXPs:
"For virtually all developing country ISPs, the only
option for connectivity to the global Internet is a
transit agreement.
That is, a developing country ISP has such a small
customer base that the international Tier-1 and Tier-2
providers have no business incentive to enter a
shared-cost peering agreement with it.
Many of MCI's criteria for no-cost peering are difficult
or impossible for developing country ISPs to satisfy,
e.g., a Traffic Exchange Ratio not exceeding1.5:1"
"The result (to over simplify slightly) is that
developing country ISPs must pay 100% of
both outbound and inbound traffic; under the
terms of the transit agreement, the ISP on the
other end of the international link does not
share the cost of exchanged traffic"
"For Africa, then, the result is a massive outflow of
capital, amounting to perhaps hundreds of millions of
dollars per year -- the amount paid by African ISPs to
send domestic traffic over international connections.
In other words, the perverse situation is that African
Internet service providers -- small companies
struggling to provide network services to the poorest
populations in the world --are effectively subsidizing
the largest, richest ISPs in Europe and the United
States."
Now,another issue, besides getting more equitable transit or
peering agreements is to develop
Internet
Exchange Points
Alan Levin
asked this question for the GAC :
Since there is a disincentive for some ISPs to peer,
should IXPs be regulated by an Internet
governance institution ?
( WGIG 