[At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY, ICANN NOT AFFECTED.

[Bill Silverstein]

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 at iecc.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2017 11:57 AM
>> To: Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia>
>> Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>