[At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY, ICANN NOT AFFECTED.
bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
Tue Dec 5 08:19:57 UTC 2017
> On 5 Dec 2017, at 05:09, Bill Silverstein <icann-list at sorehands.com> wrote:
> Maybe John is looking at the fact that ICANN refuses to do what they were
> supposed to do.
Sorry, Bill: irrespective of whether you have a point here, this type of unsubstantiated statement (‘fact’?) is exactly why I, without having read the FCC doc, sympathise with John’s line of reasoning. Until further notice. Happy to be proven wrong, but too I would appreciate ‘Specific examples please, preferably with paragraph references.’
(Obviously this worrying development hit the press in my part of the world too. Again, I have not read the FCC doc, and no it doubt it is an interesting piece of work. ALAC/At-Large however is supposedly already struggling with getting volunteers involved in actual ICANN related (policy) work, so it would be helpful IMO to determine whether is has an impact and deserves our time/resources and attention in that context. If not, then I’d suggest to move the exchange on this topic elsewhere.)
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> involved with
>>> ICANN. For example, many of us live in the United States and our
>>> bills will change due to the bill that Congress recently passed. But I
>> hope we
>>> agree that's not relevant here, either.
>>>> 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
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large