Re: [At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY
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 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.
On 6 December 2017 at 14:07, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> wrote:
A reading of the FCC Net Neutrality order clearly reveals how impactful this order will be on ICANN's stated mission and goals.
Still waiting for specific examples..... A focus on technical aspects of the operation of the Internet's
identifiers is incorrect.
Readers are invited to consult the ICANN bylaws. That focus *is* its mandate.
"Security and Stability"
It's easy to toss buzzwords out of context. ICANN's mandate is "stability and security *of the DNS*" Still waiting for any credible link between the NN discussions and that.
I suggest a formal process for obtaining opinions from the At-large group about perspective on the proposed FCC policy, not short circuiting discussion by listening to the opinions of a small group of insiders.
Hint: The "small group of insiders" are also part of "the At-large group". Does their opinion count for less? Perhaps being a "insider" suggests an actual understanding of how and why ICANN works as it does? Does anyone think that such dreaded "insider" input might actually be helpful in determining a position that won't be blown off as irrelevant?
In other words, why don't we ask people what they think, instead of telling them that the FCC policy is irrelevant?
The question got put out. And some people -- including a few with decades worth of experience and understanding of ICANN -- responded that the FCC policy is irrelevant to it. Still waiting on *evidence* to the contrary. This group is also welcome to solicit opinions and then take a vote on whether the sun will rise tomorrow. Cheers, - Evan
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: 876-818-1799Strategy, 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/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
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 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
I understand. It is also entirely reasonable to experience a subject (coordination of the unique identifiers)/predicate (for a stable and secure DNS) dissonance. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:39 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> 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 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
Your response is unclear. Clarify please. On Dec 7, 2017 7:57 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand. It is also entirely reasonable to experience a subject (coordination of the unique identifiers)/predicate (for a stable and secure DNS) dissonance.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:39 PM, William Michael Cunningham < williamcunningham840@gmail.com> 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 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
participants (3)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
William Michael Cunningham