Nobody is stopping any discussion! That is precisely what has been going on in this thread. But the weight of opinion so far point strongly towards the fact that the (in my view) bad policy choices FCC will vote on on the 14th (and that I think will be revoked in 3 years by Democrats) do not affect ICANN’s domain name system remit duties. We can and should keep on discussing -I think Facebooks IG Hub or ISOC Open Forum could be better suited-and I also encourage all to file comments at the FCC docket, something that is very easy to do. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Dec 10, 2017, at 4:13 PM, William Michael Cunningham <williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:

1. The mission of ICANN has always been narrow, but with the major revision of the Bylaws following the ICANN Accountability work over the last two years, the mission has become even more restricted and is explicitly enumerated, thus 1.1(b) explicitly saying that the previous paragraphs are complete. So not being counter the mission does not mean it is included. Similarly, expressions such as "broadly defined" are not how this is viewed by many.

I happen to agree that ICANN's mission should be more flexible. But that was not the bottom-up decision of the community.

Bylaws should not be used as an excuse not to respond (or even consider) major changes in the operational environment. I don't think bylaws are meant to be used to block discussion of a simple question as to the potential impact of a policy. The same goes for the reference to years of participation, which I have experienced in ICANN as a sly way to influence the perceived value of comments from certain people. As I noted, ask Kodak or Blockbuster how helpful years of experience were. I should also note that one reason references to experience are invalid on this forum relates to the lack of diversity. You can't have years of experience if you have been prevented, however slyly, from being able to meaningfully participate.

2. My reference to years of experience was not in relation to interpreting ICANN's mission, but in demonstrating that many in this group have a long history of doing things to aid the Internet without regard to financial or other benefits.

Alan

...

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 8, 2017 9:11 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Two points of clarification.

1. The mission of ICANN has always been narrow, but with the major revision of the Bylaws following the ICANN Accountability work over the last two years, the mission has become even more restricted and is explicitly enumerated, thus 1.1(b) explicitly saying that the previous paragraphs are complete. So not being counter the mission does not mean it is included. Similarly, expressions such as "broadly defined" are not how this is viewed by many.

I happen to agree that ICANN's mission should be more flexible. But that was not the bottom-up decision of the community.

Thank you Alan, for saying this.

2. My reference to years of experience was not in relation to interpreting ICANN's mission, but in demonstrating that many in this group have a long history of doing things to aid the Internet without regard to financial or other benefits.

Alan

At 07/12/2017 11:22 PM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:

...

I see nothing in the bylaws which runs counter to my position. In point of fact, in several places there is support for my inquiry, which is, by the way, simply this: how might the newly revealed FCC AND policy impact DNS security, stability and, most importantly, OPEN access, broadly defined. The answer is certainly not that it will have no impact.

Further, I see nothing in the bylaws that gives added weight to years of experience in any aspect of policy. If there is, please point it out. As a "bottom up" initiative, there should be a specific policy on this.

On Dec 7, 2017 10:42 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: William, you are free to believe whatever you wish. But that does not change what is written in ICANN's Bylaws. I quote:

Section 1.1. MISSION

(a) The mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems as described in this Section 1.1(a) (the "Mission"). Specifically, ICANN:

(i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). In this role, ICANN's scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies:

For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems.

The issues, policies, procedures, and principles addressed in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2 with respect to gTLD registrars and registries shall be deemed to be within ICANN's Mission.

(ii) Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.

(iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. In service of its Mission, ICANN (A) provides registration services and open access for global number registries as requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force ("IETF") and the Regional Internet Registries ("RIRs") and (B) facilitates the development of global number registry policies by the affected community and other related tasks as agreed with the RIRs.

(iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations.

(b) ICANN shall not act outside its Mission.

(c) ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority. =====

"Secure and stable operation" *IS* one of the key phrases, but one cannot ignore that words that come after it - "of the Internet's unique identifier systems". We work within the overall Internet Governance System that includes national laws and regulations. But we have responsibility for only a small and very specific part of that.

Many of us passionately care about how well the Internet functions and how accessible it is to our own communities and those of our colleagues around the world. Despite you insinuations that we may be taking certain positions for personal or corporate financial gain, many of us have spent DECADES helping to further the goal of good, widely available, reliable and secure Internet access and have done this with no hope or desire to personally gain from our efforts.

Alan Greenberg

At 07/12/2017 06:39 PM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:

...

Even if I believed this incorporated the totality of the ICANN mission, which I do not, "stable and secure" is the operative phrase. Removing nn at the FCC is a destabilizing policy change, in much the same way that removing glass steagal was destabilizing to the financial marketplace.

On Dec 7, 2017 6:32 PM, "Carlton Samuels" < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote: Just seeing this. ICANN's remit is coordinating the Internet's unique identifiers in furtherance of a stable and secure domain name system. While interesting and even mildly entertaining, the FCC's NN malarkey is decidedly outside the ICANN remit. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:07 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote: A reading of the FCC Net Neutrality order clearly reveals how impactful this order will be on ICANN's stated mission and goals. A focus on technical aspects of the operation of the Internet's identifiers is incorrect. Such a focus is simply too narrow, driven and suggested by a small group of mainly non-minority individuals who appear to support the financial interests of their group, and their group alone. This entirely monetary focus is contrary to ICANN's desire to facilitate discussion by all internet users in matters of national internet policy development. Here are some other factors: "Security and Stability" "Diversity - income, gender race." "Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice" Clearly, the order will impact each of these areas separately and jointly. I suggest a formal process for obtaining opinions from the At-large group about perspective on the proposed FCC policy, not short circuiting discussion by listening to the opinions of a small group of insiders. In other words, why don't we ask people what they think, instead of telling them that the FCC policy is irrelevant? On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:08 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote: Clearly, you have not looked at this or the previous order and I have no interest in doing it for you. I'd also suggest you look at the video of the prior net neutrality hearing under the previous Chair. Since I was at that meeting, I can confirm that your concerns were noted quite indelibly. On Dec 4, 2017 10:01 PM, "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

-- 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 quotedted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduuce in wholle 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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:arpRVjv76hltAnGe1cdByIdOqFgVtIbjG6NaQur3xe4pDd4Yqtty93qjBOptqrzH6MizEdn3+qGcgmNLPq97fMxp2H7b24vcxfLCxwDZeJt9tA+Z7Cwc1PujHvOW5mWQ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: /zjmkQ9wmB7vEEZ+yI/mLSxTvRRLPhaNFA+muFF/XPNsMXtDJJDtJ10qCRyh9IWW/Tn7qeYuHkzknp7BWhU4bD+AV6sb8Lxa8z4+OJkiibghAT5MTWATi24qFy1890GjgLnnZp3Rhx8yjHfAzVcFeA==

_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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, an 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 11, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:

On the other hand, this is interesting: http://www.zdnet. com/article/new-web-browsing-security-tool-arrives-dns-over-tls/

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Dec 10, 2017, at 4:13 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:

1. The mission of ICANN has always been narrow, but with the major revision of the Bylaws following the ICANN Accountability work over the last two years, the mission has become even more restricted and is explicitly enumerated, thus 1.1(b) explicitly saying that the previous paragraphs are complete. So not being counter the mission does not mean it is included. Similarly, expressions such as "broadly defined" are not how this is viewed by many.

I happen to agree that ICANN's mission should be more flexible. But that was not the bottom-up decision of the community.

Bylaws should not be used as an excuse not to respond (or even consider) major changes in the operational environment. I don't think bylaws are meant to be used to block discussion of a simple question as to the potential impact of a policy. The same goes for the reference to years of participation, which I have experienced in ICANN as a sly way to influence the perceived value of comments from certain people. As I noted, ask Kodak or Blockbuster how helpful years of experience were. I should also note that one reason references to experience are invalid on this forum relates to the lack of diversity. You can't have years of experience if you have been prevented, however slyly, from being able to meaningfully participate.

2. My reference to years of experience was not in relation to interpreting ICANN's mission, but in demonstrating that many in this group have a long history of doing things to aid the Internet without regard to financial or other benefits.

Alan

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 8, 2017 9:11 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Two points of clarification.

1. The mission of ICANN has always been narrow, but with the major revision of the Bylaws following the ICANN Accountability work over the last two years, the mission has become even more restricted and is explicitly enumerated, thus 1.1(b) explicitly saying that the previous paragraphs are complete. So not being counter the mission does not mean it is included. Similarly, expressions such as "broadly defined" are not how this is viewed by many.

I happen to agree that ICANN's mission should be more flexible. But that was not the bottom-up decision of the community.

Thank you Alan, for saying this.

2. My reference to years of experience was not in relation to interpreting ICANN's mission, but in demonstrating that many in this group have a long history of doing things to aid the Internet without regard to financial or other benefits.

Alan

At 07/12/2017 11:22 PM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:

I see nothing in the bylaws which runs counter to my position. In point of fact, in several places there is support for my inquiry, which is, by the way, simply this: how might the newly revealed FCC AND policy impact DNS security, stability and, most importantly, OPEN access, broadly defined. The answer is certainly not that it will have no impact.

Further, I see nothing in the bylaws that gives added weight to years of experience in any aspect of policy. If there is, please point it out. As a "bottom up" initiative, there should be a specific policy on this.

On Dec 7, 2017 10:42 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: William, you are free to believe whatever you wish. But that does not change what is written in ICANN's Bylaws. I quote:

Section 1.1. MISSION

(a) The mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems as described in this Section 1.1(a) (the "Mission"). Specifically, ICANN:

(i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). In this role, ICANN's scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies:

For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems.

The issues, policies, procedures, and principles addressed in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2 with respect to gTLD registrars and registries shall be deemed to be within ICANN's Mission.

(ii) Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.

(iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. In service of its Mission, ICANN (A) provides registration services and open access for global number registries as requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force ("IETF") and the Regional Internet Registries ("RIRs") and (B) facilitates the development of global number registry policies by the affected community and other related tasks as agreed with the RIRs.

(iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations.

(b) ICANN shall not act outside its Mission.

(c) ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority. =====

"Secure and stable operation" *IS* one of the key phrases, but one cannot ignore that words that come after it - "of the Internet's unique identifier systems". We work within the overall Internet Governance System that includes national laws and regulations. But we have responsibility for only a small and very specific part of that.

Many of us passionately care about how well the Internet functions and how accessible it is to our own communities and those of our colleagues around the world. Despite you insinuations that we may be taking certain positions for personal or corporate financial gain, many of us have spent DECADES helping to further the goal of good, widely available, reliable and secure Internet access and have done this with no hope or desire to personally gain from our efforts.

Alan Greenberg

At 07/12/2017 06:39 PM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:

Even if I believed this incorporated the totality of the ICANN mission, which I do not, "stable and secure" is the operative phrase. Removing nn at the FCC is a destabilizing policy change, in much the same way that removing glass steagal was destabilizing to the financial marketplace.

On Dec 7, 2017 6:32 PM, "Carlton Samuels" < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote: Just seeing this. ICANN's remit is coordinating the Internet's unique identifiers in furtherance of a stable and secure domain name system. While interesting and even mildly entertaining, the FCC's NN malarkey is decidedly outside the ICANN remit. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:07 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote: A reading of the FCC Net Neutrality order clearly reveals how impactful this order will be on ICANN's stated mission and goals. A focus on technical aspects of the operation of the Internet's identifiers is incorrect. Such a focus is simply too narrow, driven and suggested by a small group of mainly non-minority individuals who appear to support the financial interests of their group, and their group alone. This entirely monetary focus is contrary to ICANN's desire to facilitate discussion by all internet users in matters of national internet policy development. Here are some other factors: "Security and Stability" "Diversity - income, gender race." "Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice" Clearly, the order will impact each of these areas separately and jointly. I suggest a formal process for obtaining opinions from the At-large group about perspective on the proposed FCC policy, not short circuiting discussion by listening to the opinions of a small group of insiders. In other words, why don't we ask people what they think, instead of telling them that the FCC policy is irrelevant? On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:08 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote: Clearly, you have not looked at this or the previous order and I have no interest in doing it for you. I'd also suggest you look at the video of the prior net neutrality hearing under the previous Chair. Since I was at that meeting, I can confirm that your concerns were noted quite indelibly. On Dec 4, 2017 10:01 PM, "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

-- 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 <(202)%20455-0430> "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 quotedted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduuce in wholle 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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:arpRVjv76hltAnGe1cdByIdOqFgVtIbjG6NaQur 3xe4pDd4Yqtty93qjBOptqrzH6MizEdn3+qGcgmNLPq97fMxp2H7b24vcxfL CxwDZeJt9tA+Z7Cwc1PujHvOW5mWQ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: /zjmkQ9wmB7vEEZ+yI/mLSxTvRRLPhaNFA+muFF/XPNsMXtDJJDtJ10qCRyh 9IWW/Tn7qeYuHkzknp7BWhU4bD+AV6sb8Lxa8z4+OJkiibghAT5MTWATi24q Fy1890GjgLnnZp3Rhx8yjHfAzVcFeA==

_______________________________________________ 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/1484224086/

202-455-0430 <(202)%20455-0430>

"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

-- 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.

The origin of the policy is not relevant or germane. In fact, NN is appropriate for a smaller economy that is not the GLOBAL POLICY LEADER. The “information service” status of Internet Access Service was fine in 1995 when I posted by first internet website. It is entirely inappropriate now. Going back allows the regulator a better chance of limiting access by groups they do not like - muslims, blacks, hispanics, etc. I suspect the tone of this group discussion would be different if a discussion were under consideration about blocking, let's say, Jerusalem because of the current controversy. (As I noted, there is one underway about blocking muslims.) Legally, you can't do this under the public utility doctrine currently in place. It is easier to do (and don't talk to be about whether or not you can do it. This is not about technical capability. It's about sending signals and about the next ten policy steps) under the commercial guidelines that this guy wants to TAKE US BACK TO. On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:

William,

Note that the first Net Neutrality law was a Chilean Law, not any US regulation or order, and not only FCC but also BEREC drank a lot from that Chilean fountain.

Chile’s NN Law led to a dogmatic interpretation there banning zero rating offers, which took away from consumers some “free” products which they would not otherwise have had access to, which is a classic case of the road to hell being paved by good (regulatory) intentions.

The US approach has been relatively liberal under Obama-era NN rules, and will now be even more “hands off” or “light touch” than before. That can be good or bad (I personally think FCC should leave things as they are now, because I believe in the role of the State as referee and protector of the public interest and that it is better to have a power and not use it than abdicating it all together; yet I am also hesitant to predict an Internet apocalypse next week since markets and competition can also be quite effective in getting goods to individuals, and next week’s rules where the ones in place before and nobody died).

What Pai will do is take us to the “information service” status of Internet Access Service as it (always?) was before 2015. ICANN had many years to muse about US “net neutrality” policy (or lack thereof) and its impacts, if any, on DNS function. I fail to find said pre 2015 discussion. If one does a Google (or Bing, Yahoo, Duck Duck Go, Dogpile or Yippy, etc.) search today on the phrases “domain name system” “net neutrality” something interesting is bound to come up. Is it that we are somehow smarter and more sensitive in 2017 than in 2014, or is it that we are just more political? I hope is the former, not the latter.

J

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Dec 11, 2017, at 5:14 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/14, the FCC will consider a Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, an 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 11, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On the other hand, this is interesting: http://www.zdnet. com/article/new-web-browsing-security-tool-arrives-dns-over-tls/

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 <(787)%20396-6511> twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Dec 10, 2017, at 4:13 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:

1. The mission of ICANN has always been narrow, but with the major revision of the Bylaws following the ICANN Accountability work over the last two years, the mission has become even more restricted and is explicitly enumerated, thus 1.1(b) explicitly saying that the previous paragraphs are complete. So not being counter the mission does not mean it is included. Similarly, expressions such as "broadly defined" are not how this is viewed by many.

I happen to agree that ICANN's mission should be more flexible. But that was not the bottom-up decision of the community.

Bylaws should not be used as an excuse not to respond (or even consider) major changes in the operational environment. I don't think bylaws are meant to be used to block discussion of a simple question as to the potential impact of a policy. The same goes for the reference to years of participation, which I have experienced in ICANN as a sly way to influence the perceived value of comments from certain people. As I noted, ask Kodak or Blockbuster how helpful years of experience were. I should also note that one reason references to experience are invalid on this forum relates to the lack of diversity. You can't have years of experience if you have been prevented, however slyly, from being able to meaningfully participate.

2. My reference to years of experience was not in relation to interpreting ICANN's mission, but in demonstrating that many in this group have a long history of doing things to aid the Internet without regard to financial or other benefits.

Alan

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 8, 2017 9:11 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Two points of clarification.

1. The mission of ICANN has always been narrow, but with the major revision of the Bylaws following the ICANN Accountability work over the last two years, the mission has become even more restricted and is explicitly enumerated, thus 1.1(b) explicitly saying that the previous paragraphs are complete. So not being counter the mission does not mean it is included. Similarly, expressions such as "broadly defined" are not how this is viewed by many.

I happen to agree that ICANN's mission should be more flexible. But that was not the bottom-up decision of the community.

Thank you Alan, for saying this.

2. My reference to years of experience was not in relation to interpreting ICANN's mission, but in demonstrating that many in this group have a long history of doing things to aid the Internet without regard to financial or other benefits.

Alan

At 07/12/2017 11:22 PM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:

I see nothing in the bylaws which runs counter to my position. In point of fact, in several places there is support for my inquiry, which is, by the way, simply this: how might the newly revealed FCC AND policy impact DNS security, stability and, most importantly, OPEN access, broadly defined. The answer is certainly not that it will have no impact.

Further, I see nothing in the bylaws that gives added weight to years of experience in any aspect of policy. If there is, please point it out. As a "bottom up" initiative, there should be a specific policy on this.

On Dec 7, 2017 10:42 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: William, you are free to believe whatever you wish. But that does not change what is written in ICANN's Bylaws. I quote:

Section 1.1. MISSION

(a) The mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems as described in this Section 1.1(a) (the "Mission"). Specifically, ICANN:

(i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). In this role, ICANN's scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies:

For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems.

The issues, policies, procedures, and principles addressed in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2 with respect to gTLD registrars and registries shall be deemed to be within ICANN's Mission.

(ii) Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.

(iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. In service of its Mission, ICANN (A) provides registration services and open access for global number registries as requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force ("IETF") and the Regional Internet Registries ("RIRs") and (B) facilitates the development of global number registry policies by the affected community and other related tasks as agreed with the RIRs.

(iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations.

(b) ICANN shall not act outside its Mission.

(c) ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority. =====

"Secure and stable operation" *IS* one of the key phrases, but one cannot ignore that words that come after it - "of the Internet's unique identifier systems". We work within the overall Internet Governance System that includes national laws and regulations. But we have responsibility for only a small and very specific part of that.

Many of us passionately care about how well the Internet functions and how accessible it is to our own communities and those of our colleagues around the world. Despite you insinuations that we may be taking certain positions for personal or corporate financial gain, many of us have spent DECADES helping to further the goal of good, widely available, reliable and secure Internet access and have done this with no hope or desire to personally gain from our efforts.

Alan Greenberg

At 07/12/2017 06:39 PM, William Michael Cunningham wrote:

Even if I believed this incorporated the totality of the ICANN mission, which I do not, "stable and secure" is the operative phrase. Removing nn at the FCC is a destabilizing policy change, in much the same way that removing glass steagal was destabilizing to the financial marketplace.

On Dec 7, 2017 6:32 PM, "Carlton Samuels" < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote: Just seeing this. ICANN's remit is coordinating the Internet's unique identifiers in furtherance of a stable and secure domain name system. While interesting and even mildly entertaining, the FCC's NN malarkey is decidedly outside the ICANN remit. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:07 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote: A reading of the FCC Net Neutrality order clearly reveals how impactful this order will be on ICANN's stated mission and goals. A focus on technical aspects of the operation of the Internet's identifiers is incorrect. Such a focus is simply too narrow, driven and suggested by a small group of mainly non-minority individuals who appear to support the financial interests of their group, and their group alone. This entirely monetary focus is contrary to ICANN's desire to facilitate discussion by all internet users in matters of national internet policy development. Here are some other factors: "Security and Stability" "Diversity - income, gender race." "Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice" Clearly, the order will impact each of these areas separately and jointly. I suggest a formal process for obtaining opinions from the At-large group about perspective on the proposed FCC policy, not short circuiting discussion by listening to the opinions of a small group of insiders. In other words, why don't we ask people what they think, instead of telling them that the FCC policy is irrelevant? On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:08 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote: Clearly, you have not looked at this or the previous order and I have no interest in doing it for you. I'd also suggest you look at the video of the prior net neutrality hearing under the previous Chair. Since I was at that meeting, I can confirm that your concerns were noted quite indelibly. On Dec 4, 2017 10:01 PM, "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

-- 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 <(202)%20455-0430> "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 quotedted within this work. Copyright©2017 by William Michael Cunningham and Creative Investment Research, Inc. All rights reserved – including the right to reproduuce in wholle 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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:arpRVjv76hltAnGe1cdByIdOqFgVtIbjG6NaQur 3xe4pDd4Yqtty93qjBOptqrzH6MizEdn3+qGcgmNLPq97fMxp2H7b24vcxfL CxwDZeJt9tA+Z7Cwc1PujHvOW5mWQ X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: /zjmkQ9wmB7vEEZ+yI/mLSxTvRRLPhaNFA+muFF/XPNsMXtDJJDtJ10qCRyh 9IWW/Tn7qeYuHkzknp7BWhU4bD+AV6sb8Lxa8z4+OJkiibghAT5MTWATi24q Fy1890GjgLnnZp3Rhx8yjHfAzVcFeA==

_______________________________________________ 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-Star tups/dp/1484224086/

202-455-0430 <(202)%20455-0430>

"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

-- 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 <(202)%20455-0430>

"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.

-- 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.