If an ISP were blocking a public DNS server in order to force people to use its own DNS server, perhaps in order that it could capture data on its customers' lookups, and do redirects - we've seen Verizon redirect on bad queries, for instance - might that a violation of neutrality? But, the current US hoohah is not strictly about neutrality, it's about the means of ISP regulation - on neutrality or other behavior - whether it should be via telecom common carriage regulation (FCC) , or via more general fair trade rules on antitrust and consumer protection (FTC). The current regime - the former - apparently very much precludes the latter, at least when it comes to network management. joly On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Bill Silverstein <icann-list@sorehands.com> wrote:
Maybe John is looking at the fact that ICANN refuses to do what they were supposed to do.
On Mon, December 4, 2017 8:05 pm, Edmon Chung wrote:
Thanks John, that t is a very technical response, which I can respect and cannot disagree with.
But based on your response I am still not clear why ICANN at-large should not pay attention..., the FCC order does seem like a relevant issue if we believe that consumer trust of the DNS is relevant... and might be affected...
I apologize for my lax use of the term "neutrality". My second sentence is perhaps more specific... Allow me to rephrase... what I am unable to ascertain is:
Based on this new order, does it mean that ISPs can give preferential treatment to DNS traffic to particular TLDs as long as they are transparent about it and justifies it with some reason?
Whereas in the previous order ISPs are not.
If the above is correct, then ICANN community has reason to pay attention... if the above is not the case thats great, but I am not sure based on the reading of the document.
Sorry to bother you john, hopefully others can help answer the above question if they know the answer. :-)
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2017 11:57 AM To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RE: [At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY, ICANN NOT AFFECTED.
But, John, if it doesnt bother you too much... Would like to know why you think it is not relevant to ICANN community?...
ICANN's job is to manage identifiers in the DNS and (to some extent) IP addresses. This order has no effect on that.
There are lots of things that might affect some people who are also involved with ICANN. For example, many of us live in the United States and our personal tax bills will change due to the bill that Congress recently passed. But I hope we agree that's not relevant here, either.
R's, John
PS:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347926A1.pdf 33. DNS. We find that Domain Name System (DNS) is an indispensable functionality of broadband Internet access service.101
Does this mean that the DNS is an exception? and therefore DNS neutrality is preserved?
I have no idea what you mean by "DNS neutrality", and I'm pretty sure I don't want to know. If you mean that ISPs rewrite DNS results, e.g., replace NXDOMAIN with an A record of a web server, or they block resolution of names they believe to be malicious, they've been doing that all along. But whatever it might be, it's not ICANN's remit.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -