Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Wed Dec 6 19:55:26 UTC 2017

On 6 December 2017 at 14:07, William Michael Cunningham <
williamcunningham840 at 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

> "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.


- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20171206/84289c2a/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list