FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY
Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality. Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1 And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan. Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet. But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2 If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity. Kris
I agree this isn't a great move but what relation does this have to ICANN? On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
It really doesn't but an interesting topic outside of the narrow scope of ICANN G Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 . On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I agree this isn't a great move but what relation does this have to ICANN?
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ 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
Complete agree with Glenn this will be shape the future of the NET El 4 dic. 2017 6:36 PM, "Glenn McKnight" <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> escribió:
It really doesn't but an interesting topic outside of the narrow scope of ICANN G
Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 .
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I agree this isn't a great move but what relation does this have to ICANN?
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ 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
I have an article on this coming out in a local business focused internet newspaper soon. I’ll share when it comes out. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 4, 2017, a la(s) 7:36 p. m., Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> escribió:
It really doesn't but an interesting topic outside of the narrow scope of ICANN G
Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 .
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: I agree this isn't a great move but what relation does this have to ICANN?
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ 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
FCC rules concerning net neutrality are certainly within ICANN's scope. I encourage an actual reading of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We have linked specific sectiuons to ICANN policies and procedures, as I am sure other have. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-60A1.pdf On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
I have an article on this coming out in a local business focused internet newspaper soon. I’ll share when it comes out.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
El dic. 4, 2017, a la(s) 7:36 p. m., Glenn McKnight < mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> escribió:
It really doesn't but an interesting topic outside of the narrow scope of ICANN G
Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 <(289)%20830-6259> .
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:31 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I agree this isn't a great move but what relation does this have to ICANN?
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, Kris Seeburn wrote:
Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240... 202-455-0430 "Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
FCC rules concerning net neutrality are certainly within ICANN's scope. I encourage an actual reading of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
I haven't read the whole thing but I've looked at a lot of it.
We have linked specific sectiuons to ICANN policies and procedures.
Like what? Specific examples please, preferably with paragraph references. R's, John
If this is the case (I haven’t seen that ICANN remit language) we should pinpoint it and try to make some sort of statement against it (against somehow manipulating the DNS to speed up or throttle sites?). If this is truly something ICANN can affect WE SHOULD SAY OR DO SOMETHING AS USA NARALO MEMBERS. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 4, 2017, a la(s) 9:24 p. m., John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> escribió:
FCC rules concerning net neutrality are certainly within ICANN's scope. I encourage an actual reading of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
I haven't read the whole thing but I've looked at a lot of it.
We have linked specific sectiuons to ICANN policies and procedures.
Like what? Specific examples please, preferably with paragraph references.
R's, John
I agree. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
If this is the case (I haven’t seen that ICANN remit language) we should pinpoint it and try to make some sort of statement against it (against somehow manipulating the DNS to speed up or throttle sites?). If this is truly something ICANN can affect WE SHOULD SAY OR DO SOMETHING AS USA NARALO MEMBERS.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
El dic. 4, 2017, a la(s) 9:24 p. m., John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> escribió:
FCC rules concerning net neutrality are certainly within ICANN's scope. I
encourage an actual reading of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
I haven't read the whole thing but I've looked at a lot of it.
We have linked specific sectiuons to ICANN policies and procedures.
Like what? Specific examples please, preferably with paragraph references.
R's, John
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240... 202-455-0430 "Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
If this is the case (I haven’t seen that ICANN remit language) ...
I would be surprised if it existed, although of course I'm prepared to be shown I'm mistaken, with paragraph numbers. The order is about customer-facing ISPs, most of which are only DNS operators to the extent they provide service for their customers. Some have vanity TLDs like .COMCAST, Google via Google Fiber is a registry, but I'd be rather surprised if the FCC order had any bearing on their registroy or registrar activities. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Interesting. Suggest you read this order and the previous order it replaces. On Dec 4, 2017 8:54 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
If this is the case (I haven’t seen that ICANN remit language) ...
I would be surprised if it existed, although of course I'm prepared to be shown I'm mistaken, with paragraph numbers.
The order is about customer-facing ISPs, most of which are only DNS operators to the extent they provide service for their customers. Some have vanity TLDs like .COMCAST, Google via Google Fiber is a registry, but I'd be rather surprised if the FCC order had any bearing on their registroy or registrar activities.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Interesting. Suggest you read this order and the previous order it replaces.
I have, and see nothing relevant to ICANN. Your turn. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Interesting. Suggest you look again. On Dec 4, 2017 9:49 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Interesting. Suggest you read this order and the previous order it
replaces.
I have, and see nothing relevant to ICANN. Your turn.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN. R's, John
So I looked. Well. there is this amusing snippet in the background material... (Item 37, Page 13) Second, the Title II Order found that DNS94 and caching95 used in broadband
Internet access service were just used “for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.”96 The Commission has previously held this category applies to “adjunct-to-basic” functions that are “incidental” to a telecommunications service’s underlying use and “do not alter [its] fundamental character.”97 As such, these functions generally are not “useful to end users, rather than carriers.”98 We seek comment on how DNS and caching functions are now used, whether they benefit end users, Internet service providers, or both, and whether they fit within the adjunct-to-basic exception. How would broadband Internet access service work without DNS or caching? Would removing DNS have a merely incidental effect on broadband Internet users, or would it fundamentally change their online experience? Absent caching, would broadband Internet users that now expect high-quality video streaming see only incidental changes or more fundamental changes? Are there other ways that DNS or caching are used for “for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system”? Are there any other aspects of the Title II Order’s treatment of DNS or caching that should be reconsidered here?
Unless I am missing a larger context (totally possible), it would seem that based on this section, that the FCC has mused (but not acted) on action on the DNS, wondering out loud if it is even necessary and could be removed without incurring "fundamental changes" in user experience.... Still, the substance of the document never mentions the DNS, domain names, or even IP addresses, beyond the background info. As such I agree with John that discussion of Net Neutrality, as important as the topic is, lies well beyond the scope of anything ICANN is able to affect and, as such, beyond any useful attention by At-Large. The fact that this group has been assembled (at ICANN's expense) and contains many people interested in the topic is not in itself justification to abuse its forums with wannabe mission-creep. ICANN has enough difficulty in addressing that which is within scope. Cheers, - Evan
In the unlikely event that anyone's still interested, the FCC's new order only mentions the DNS in three places, in paragraphs 28, 29, and 37. The context is that ISPs often run a DNS cache as an ancillary service, and it asks what difference it would make if they didn't, presumably directing their users to a third party service like 8.8.8.8 or 9.9.9.9. While that's a semi-interesting question in trying to decide whether ISPs are a telecom or enhanced service, it has, as I've repeatedly pointed out, nothing to do with ICANN and its oversight of domain name management. IP addresses are mentioned in paragraph 29, as what the DNS translates names to, and in Commisioner Clyburn's comments in passing in a discussion about what counts as a CMRS (mobile phone service) amd a few places indirectly in that ISPs sometiems do NAT (local IP address translation.) Again, semi-interesting in context, but nothing to do with anything ICANN does. So again, why are we even talking about this in an ICANN forum? I'll stop now. R's, John PS: I guess the message here is that if someone can't tell you what parts of a document he's read, you can safely assume he hasn't read it.
Sorry am not fully up to speed with all the jargon in the long document... But, John, if it doesnt bother you too much... Would like to know why you think it is not relevant to ICANN community?... https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-tentative-agenda-december-open-me eting-3 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? Or would DNS neutrality be also revoked in this new order? i.e. 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? Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: At-Large [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2017 11:37 AM To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY, ICANN NOT AFFECTED.
In the unlikely event that anyone's still interested, the FCC's new order only mentions the DNS in three places, in paragraphs 28, 29, and 37. The context is that ISPs often run a DNS cache as an ancillary service, and it asks what difference it would make if they didn't, presumably directing their users to a third party service like 8.8.8.8 or 9.9.9.9. While that's a semi-interesting question in trying to decide whether ISPs are a telecom or enhanced service, it has, as I've repeatedly pointed out, nothing to do with ICANN and its oversight of domain name management.
IP addresses are mentioned in paragraph 29, as what the DNS translates names to, and in Commisioner Clyburn's comments in passing in a discussion about what counts as a CMRS (mobile phone service) amd a few places indirectly in that ISPs sometiems do NAT (local IP address translation.) Again, semi-interesting in context, but nothing to do with anything ICANN does.
So again, why are we even talking about this in an ICANN forum? I'll stop now.
R's, John
PS: I guess the message here is that if someone can't tell you what parts of a document he's read, you can safely assume he hasn't read it.
_______________________________________________ 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
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.
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.
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
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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Thanks Joly for the explanation. That is very useful. Edmon From: At-Large [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2017 15:40 PM To: Bill Silverstein <icann-list@sorehands.com> Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY, ICANN NOT AFFECTED. 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:johnl@iecc.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2017 11:57 AM To: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia <mailto:edmon@registry.asia> > Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
On 5 Dec 2017, at 05:09, 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.
Sorry, Bill: irrespective of whether you have a point here, this type of unsubstantiated statement (‘fact’?) is exactly why I, without having read the FCC doc, sympathise with John’s line of reasoning. Until further notice. Happy to be proven wrong, but too I would appreciate ‘Specific examples please, preferably with paragraph references.’ (Obviously this worrying development hit the press in my part of the world too. Again, I have not read the FCC doc, and no it doubt it is an interesting piece of work. ALAC/At-Large however is supposedly already struggling with getting volunteers involved in actual ICANN related (policy) work, so it would be helpful IMO to determine whether is has an impact and deserves our time/resources and attention in that context. If not, then I’d suggest to move the exchange on this topic elsewhere.) thanks Bastiaan
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
Thanks John. I’m convinced this is not an ICANN remit issue. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 4, 2017, a la(s) 11:37 p. m., John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> escribió:
In the unlikely event that anyone's still interested, the FCC's new order only mentions the DNS in three places, in paragraphs 28, 29, and 37. The context is that ISPs often run a DNS cache as an ancillary service, and it asks what difference it would make if they didn't, presumably directing their users to a third party service like 8.8.8.8 or 9.9.9.9. While that's a semi-interesting question in trying to decide whether ISPs are a telecom or enhanced service, it has, as I've repeatedly pointed out, nothing to do with ICANN and its oversight of domain name management.
IP addresses are mentioned in paragraph 29, as what the DNS translates names to, and in Commisioner Clyburn's comments in passing in a discussion about what counts as a CMRS (mobile phone service) amd a few places indirectly in that ISPs sometiems do NAT (local IP address translation.) Again, semi-interesting in context, but nothing to do with anything ICANN does.
So again, why are we even talking about this in an ICANN forum? I'll stop now.
R's, John
PS: I guess the message here is that if someone can't tell you what parts of a document he's read, you can safely assume he hasn't read it.
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks, Javier I hope you don’t mind me saying so, but my earlier reply goes for you too: i.e. please elaborate. In this case I would really like to know why you’re ‘convinced’, including specific references from the FCC publication. You don’t need to tell me why this is an important topic in general terms, it’s great to hear you’re personally invested and intend to publish an article, but I would like to learn why it is relevant in an ICANN context, within ICANN’s remit and mission, and therefore why ALAC/At-Large should work on this. cheers, Bastiaan ;-)
On 5 Dec 2017, at 10:31, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. I’m convinced this is not an ICANN remit issue.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
El dic. 4, 2017, a la(s) 11:37 p. m., John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> escribió:
In the unlikely event that anyone's still interested, the FCC's new order only mentions the DNS in three places, in paragraphs 28, 29, and 37. The context is that ISPs often run a DNS cache as an ancillary service, and it asks what difference it would make if they didn't, presumably directing their users to a third party service like 8.8.8.8 or 9.9.9.9. While that's a semi-interesting question in trying to decide whether ISPs are a telecom or enhanced service, it has, as I've repeatedly pointed out, nothing to do with ICANN and its oversight of domain name management.
IP addresses are mentioned in paragraph 29, as what the DNS translates names to, and in Commisioner Clyburn's comments in passing in a discussion about what counts as a CMRS (mobile phone service) amd a few places indirectly in that ISPs sometiems do NAT (local IP address translation.) Again, semi-interesting in context, but nothing to do with anything ICANN does.
So again, why are we even talking about this in an ICANN forum? I'll stop now.
R's, John
PS: I guess the message here is that if someone can't tell you what parts of a document he's read, you can safely assume he hasn't read it.
_______________________________________________ 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
John, Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet? Sivasubramanian M On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN. R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
This, really, is the question. The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.) Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet? Sivasubramanian M
On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240... 202-455-0430 "Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
Michael Since I have no dog in this fight - no financial interests, rather purely altruistic from a *global *perspective and as thus not /compromised/: This is an issue local to the USA. The world does not end on US shores. The US population only makes out something like 4.5% of the world population. This is a global list. While what your say may have relevance in your geographical area, it does not belong on this list as this is not ICANN's remit as was explained. As such, by the time your message reaches halfway around the world, it translates to nothing more than noise on this list. Please find an appropriate forum using the appropriate mechanisms to address this. Thanks. Derek On 2017-12-07 04:58 AM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:
This, really, is the question.
The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.)
Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote:
John,
Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet?
Sivasubramanian M
On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com <mailto:johnl@iecc.com>> wrote:
Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv
My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240...
202-455-0430
"Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK
This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
_______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Derek Smythe <derek@aa419.org> wrote:
Michael
Since I have no dog in this fight - no financial interests, rather purely altruistic from a *global *perspective and as thus not *compromised*:
This is an issue local to the USA.
No. It is not local to the USA. It starts here, sets the trend and infects the whole world.
The world does not end on US shores. The US population only makes out something like 4.5% of the world population. This is a global list.
While what your say may have relevance in your geographical area, it does not belong on this list as this is not ICANN's remit as was explained.
What is in ICANN's remit? Registry business? Why not reduce it to a commercial for-profit corporation franchising out Domain Names?
As such, by the time your message reaches halfway around the world, it translates to nothing more than noise on this list.
Please find an appropriate forum using the appropriate mechanisms to address this.
Thanks.
Derek
On 2017-12-07 04:58 AM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:
This, really, is the question.
The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.)
Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet? Sivasubramanian M
On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv
My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses- Startups/dp/1484224086/
202-455-0430 <020%202455%200430>
"Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK
This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
What did I miss here? I think there’s a big difference I we all care about this issue (‘cause we all do) and whether ICANN’s very specific remit will be affected (which I think will not, but if it did I’m completely willing to do something about it). All USA ICANN community folks can do something as individuals here, either objecting on the FCC record or future actions like voting Democratic in the future and getting a Democrat in the White House, and/or boycotting ISPs that either block or throttle sites (as a Puerto Rican, I can only resort to the first and last among these options). One can also express ones opinion and spread it all over the web/social media, and threads like this one, which is the option I took in this Op-Ed: “The end of Net Neutrality — Now what?” https://newsismybusiness.com/net-neutrality-what/ Regards, Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 7, 2017, a la(s) 7:14 a. m., Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> escribió:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Derek Smythe <derek@aa419.org> wrote: Michael Since I have no dog in this fight - no financial interests, rather purely altruistic from a global perspective and as thus not compromised:
This is an issue local to the USA.
No. It is not local to the USA. It starts here, sets the trend and infects the whole world.
The world does not end on US shores. The US population only makes out something like 4.5% of the world population. This is a global list. While what your say may have relevance in your geographical area, it does not belong on this list as this is not ICANN's remit as was explained.
What is in ICANN's remit? Registry business? Why not reduce it to a commercial for-profit corporation franchising out Domain Names?
As such, by the time your message reaches halfway around the world, it translates to nothing more than noise on this list. Please find an appropriate forum using the appropriate mechanisms to address this. Thanks.
Derek
On 2017-12-07 04:58 AM, William Michael Cunningham wrote: This, really, is the question.
The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.)
Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet?
Sivasubramanian M
On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv
My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240...
202-455-0430
"Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK
This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sivasubramanian M _______________________________________________ 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
(Typo, sorry): “I think there’s a big difference [between whether or not] we all care about this issue (‘cause we all do)...” Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 7, 2017, a la(s) 7:35 a. m., Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> escribió:
miss here? I think there’s a big difference I we all care about this issue
I agree. On Dec 7, 2017 6:14 AM, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Derek Smythe <derek@aa419.org> wrote:
Michael
Since I have no dog in this fight - no financial interests, rather purely altruistic from a *global *perspective and as thus not *compromised*:
This is an issue local to the USA.
No. It is not local to the USA. It starts here, sets the trend and infects the whole world.
The world does not end on US shores. The US population only makes out something like 4.5% of the world population. This is a global list.
While what your say may have relevance in your geographical area, it does not belong on this list as this is not ICANN's remit as was explained.
What is in ICANN's remit? Registry business? Why not reduce it to a commercial for-profit corporation franchising out Domain Names?
As such, by the time your message reaches halfway around the world, it translates to nothing more than noise on this list.
Please find an appropriate forum using the appropriate mechanisms to address this.
Thanks.
Derek
On 2017-12-07 04:58 AM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:
This, really, is the question.
The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.)
Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet? Sivasubramanian M
On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv
My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Star tups/dp/1484224086/
202-455-0430 <020%202455%200430>
"Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK
This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
Hi, Derek, Javier and John have it right. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn@gmail.com] Enviado el: jueves, 07 de diciembre de 2017 05:14 Hasta: Derek Smythe CC: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Derek Smythe <derek@aa419.org<mailto:derek@aa419.org>> wrote: Michael Since I have no dog in this fight - no financial interests, rather purely altruistic from a global perspective and as thus not compromised: This is an issue local to the USA. No. It is not local to the USA. It starts here, sets the trend and infects the whole world. The world does not end on US shores. The US population only makes out something like 4.5% of the world population. This is a global list. While what your say may have relevance in your geographical area, it does not belong on this list as this is not ICANN's remit as was explained. What is in ICANN's remit? Registry business? Why not reduce it to a commercial for-profit corporation franchising out Domain Names? As such, by the time your message reaches halfway around the world, it translates to nothing more than noise on this list. Please find an appropriate forum using the appropriate mechanisms to address this. Thanks. Derek On 2017-12-07 04:58 AM, William Michael Cunningham wrote: This, really, is the question. The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.) Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote: John, Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet? Sivasubramanian M On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com<mailto:johnl@iecc.com>> wrote: Interesting. Suggest you look again. Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN. R's, John _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240... 202-455-0430<tel:020%202455%200430> "Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
Alejandro, that means you have it right too! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua El dic. 7, 2017, a la(s) 12:30 p. m., Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> escribió:
Hi,
Derek, Javier and John have it right.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desde: At-Large [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Sivasubramanian M [isolatedn@gmail.com] Enviado el: jueves, 07 de diciembre de 2017 05:14 Hasta: Derek Smythe CC: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Derek Smythe <derek@aa419.org> wrote: Michael Since I have no dog in this fight - no financial interests, rather purely altruistic from a global perspective and as thus not compromised:
This is an issue local to the USA.
No. It is not local to the USA. It starts here, sets the trend and infects the whole world.
The world does not end on US shores. The US population only makes out something like 4.5% of the world population. This is a global list. While what your say may have relevance in your geographical area, it does not belong on this list as this is not ICANN's remit as was explained.
What is in ICANN's remit? Registry business? Why not reduce it to a commercial for-profit corporation franchising out Domain Names?
As such, by the time your message reaches halfway around the world, it translates to nothing more than noise on this list. Please find an appropriate forum using the appropriate mechanisms to address this. Thanks.
Derek
On 2017-12-07 04:58 AM, William Michael Cunningham wrote: This, really, is the question.
The answer is so clear that attempts to deny the relevance of this policy MUST give rise to questions about interest and compromise. I suppose one should question the more aggressive discussants about their financial position relative to any benefit that might accrue to them, their clients or their employers from higher internet access fees and lower internet access and reliability for the majority of the poor and people of color in the geographic regions affected. Or, it may simply be a cultural issue. If your income is higher than the income for the average human being living on earth today, you might be in a privileged (compromised ) position financially, and thus unable to fully understand the impact this proposed policy will have. (Note that I fall into that category. My experience and perspective simply gives me an awareness that others, apparently, lack.)
Calls for "proof" are an old trick, since there is no proof that would suffice for those requesting it. The request for proof is itself irrelevant, since the question does not concern what policy stance ICANN should take relative to NN, but, rather, a rational recognition that, according to the stated goals of the organization, this FCC policy WILL have an impact. The honest thing to do is to describe and prepare for that impact is it relates to the broader social (access, diversity, income) goals of the organization, not to retreat behind a narrow interpretation of the duties and obligations of this organization.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: John,
Are you saying that it is none of ICANN's concern what happens to the Internet?
Sivasubramanian M
On Dec 5, 2017 8:31 AM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Interesting. Suggest you look again.
Thanks for confirming that we have both looked at each of the 125 paragraphs of the FCC's recent order, as well as Appendices A and B, and the statements of the various commissioners and we agree that there is nothing affecting the operation of the Internet's identfiers that would be relevant to ICANN.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv
My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240...
202-455-0430
"Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK
This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sivasubramanian M _______________________________________________ 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
It really doesn't but an interesting topic outside of the narrow scope of ICANN
If this is the "random topics unrelated to ICANN" list, it's definitely time to unsubscribe. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Thanks for posting. Clearly, this plan will damage the open, unfettered operation of the internet. On Dec 4, 2017 12:32 PM, "Kris Seeburn" <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote: *Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.* Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1 And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan. Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet. *But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over.* In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2 If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity. Kris _______________________________________________ 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
Yes it will - no question. But that is an Internet Governance issue. On this list, the more specific question has been whether it impacts on ICANN’s remit - and it doesn’t. Very interesting and important topic, no doubt. Just not on this list please Holly On 7 Dec 2017, at 10:39 am, William Michael Cunningham <williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for posting. Clearly, this plan will damage the open, unfettered operation of the internet.
On Dec 4, 2017 12:32 PM, "Kris Seeburn" <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree Holly normally under governance lists regionally the issue is being more debated and shall remain there. IGF is approaxing and will have enough room for this debate, I believe. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Date: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 21:45 To: William Michael Cunningham <williamcunningham840@gmail.com> Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY Yes it will - no question. But that is an Internet Governance issue. On this list, the more specific question has been whether it impacts on ICANN’s remit - and it doesn’t. Very interesting and important topic, no doubt. Just not on this list please Holly On 7 Dec 2017, at 10:39 am, William Michael Cunningham <williamcunningham840@gmail.com<mailto:williamcunningham840@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for posting. Clearly, this plan will damage the open, unfettered operation of the internet. On Dec 4, 2017 12:32 PM, "Kris Seeburn" <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality. Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1 And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan. Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet. But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over. In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2 If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity. Kris _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
+1 -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Yes it will - no question. But that is an Internet Governance issue. On this list, the more specific question has been whether it impacts on ICANN’s remit - and it doesn’t. Very interesting and important topic, no doubt. Just not on this list please
Holly
On 7 Dec 2017, at 10:39 am, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for posting. Clearly, this plan will damage the open, unfettered operation of the internet.
On Dec 4, 2017 12:32 PM, "Kris Seeburn" <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
*Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.*
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
*But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over.* In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
On 12/14, the FCC will consider a Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order that will increase the cost of Internet service while reducing Internet Freedom by classifying broadband internet access service as an information service, and not a public service. They will reinstate the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service, allowing internet service providers to significantly increase fees. The item also will eliminate the Commission’s Internet Conduct Standard, allowing private service providers the ability to limit service. Additionally, it will remove the transparency rule thereby eliminating additional transparency safeguards, while adding burdensome and unnecessary requirements. (WC Docket No. 17-108) The issue is how might this policy impact the ability of ICANN to carry out it's mission? What does this say about other policy proposals likely to come from this body, given the extreme nature of this move, that have the potential to impact ICANN? A significant portion of internet traffic travels through US domiciled companies. These firms operate under the laws of the United States, and this fact is independent of the location of servers or other assets, including DNS related assets. This specifically includes rules and regulations issued by the FCC. It is also independent of the requirement that these firms operate under the laws of other countries. Indeed, having created the technology, one can argue that it is the United States that leads the world with respect to rules and regulations that govern the internet. This FACT may not sit well with some on this list, but these are, again, the facts. (Speaking of this list, I note that one problem is the lack of familiarity with the english language. While canadian english and american english appear close, there is a very specific subset of american english - regulatory american english - that most appear unfamiliar with. This lack of an ability to effectively translate and understand what is actually being discussed in american internet policy documents may give rise to inaccurate assessments of the relevance of certain policies.) Another issue is the inability to interpret the implications of policies. The issue is what this policy signals about future policy from this agency and the impact of these easily anticipated policies on ICANN. WIll the FCC propose to ban (eliminate DNS access) for some or all muslim websites? Believe it or not, this has been suggested privately. (This, by the way, is one benefit of sitting approximately 2.7 miles away from the FCC HQ as I type.) A focus of bylaws, suggested by people who had a hand in writing those bylaws, is far too narrow to be consistent with ICANN's mission. This is why DECADES of experience are irrelevant in the current environment. This is a volatile, fast moving set of policies, unmoored from any consideration of history (think Jerusalem) or the public interest. Under these conditions, referring to legacy experience is not only unwise, it is damaging. (Ask Kodak or Blockbuster how well they were served by DECADES of experience.) The monocultural nature of this discussion is another problem. I don't recall seeing a lot of goat herders or bus drivers on this list. The commenters I see in this thread are all persons with a stake (authors, internet consultants, policy professors at university, etc.) so they can certainly be said, factually, to have an interest. We also have to factor in the receipt of any and all internal good and services, including reputational compensation, a discussion I will bring up with the ombudsman. Further, in my decade of monitoring this list, I don't recall seeing a lot of non-majority people. ICANN has admitted that cultural diversity is an issue for a "bottom up" organization that claims to represent the interest of all internet users. It is also a factor in this discussion. On the same day that the FCC will remove protections, I note that ICANN is having an At-Large Consumer Safeguards Briefing Webinar. No agenda for this meeting has been posted yet. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
*Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net neutrality.*
Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband networks.1
And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to approve his plan.
Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when it comes to the free and open internet.
*But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over.* In just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints from consumers.2
If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
Kris
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Minority and Women-owned Company Small Business Financing Guide and Workbook: https://www.minorityfinance.com/mfinform1.html Twitter: @CreativeInv My new book: The JOBS Act: Crowdfunding for Small Businesses and Startups https://www.amazon.com/JOBS-Act-Crowdfunding-Businesses-Startups/dp/14842240... 202-455-0430 "Evil is not driven out, but crowded out...through the expulsive power of something good. " MLK This communication (including all pages in this email and any attached document) are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, disclosure or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on this document is prohibited, and may be unlawful. By inadvertent disclosure of this document Creative Investment Research, Inc. and William Michael Cunningham do not waive confidentiality privilege with respect hereto. This writing/publication is a creative work fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by misappropriation, trade secret, unfair competition and other applicable laws. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, and any excerpts from others’ reports or articles quoted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduce in whole or in part in any form.
participants (17)
-
Bastiaan Goslings -
Bill Silverstein -
Carlton Samuels -
Derek Smythe -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Edmon Chung -
Evan Leibovitch -
Glenn McKnight -
hamzah -
Holly Raiche -
Javier Rua -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Kris Seeburn -
Sivasubramanian M -
Vanda Scartezini -
William Michael Cunningham