[At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY, ICANN NOT AFFECTED.
edmon at registry.asia
Tue Dec 5 04:05:07 UTC 2017
that t is a very technical response, which I can respect and cannot disagree
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
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
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. :-)
> -----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
> > 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
> ICANN. For example, many of us live in the United States and our personal
> bills will change due to the bill that Congress recently passed. But I
> agree that's not relevant here, either.
> > 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
> to know. If you mean that ISPs rewrite DNS results, e.g., replace
> 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,
> ICANN's remit.
More information about the At-Large