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

[Edmon Chung]

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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
Of
> John R. Levine
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2017 11:37 AM
> To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org