On 6 December 2017 at 14:07, William Michael Cunningham <williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:

A reading of the FCC Net Neutrality order clearly reveals how impactful this order will be on ICANN's stated mission and goals.

Still waiting for specific examples.....

A focus on technical aspects of the operation of the Internet's identifiers is incorrect.

Readers are invited to consult the ICANN bylaws. That focus is its mandate.

"Security and Stability"

It's easy to toss buzzwords out of context.

ICANN's mandate is "stability and security of the DNS"

Still waiting for any credible link between the NN discussions and that.

I suggest a formal process for obtaining opinions from the At-large group about perspective on the proposed FCC policy, not short circuiting discussion by listening to the opinions of a small group of insiders.

Hint: The "small group of insiders" are also part of "the At-large group". Does their opinion count for less? Perhaps being a "insider" suggests an actual understanding of how and why ICANN works as it does? Does anyone think that such dreaded "insider" input might actually be helpful in determining a position that won't be blown off as irrelevant?

In other words, why don't we ask people what they think, instead of telling them that the FCC policy is irrelevant?

The question got put out. And some people -- including a few with decades worth of experience and understanding of ICANN -- responded that the FCC policy is irrelevant to it. Still waiting on *evidence* to the contrary.

This group is also welcome to solicit opinions and then take a vote on whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

Cheers,

- Evan