[At-Large] FCC TO SCRAP NET NEUTRALITY

[William Michael Cunningham]

I note your lack of response concerning financial interests, and a lack of
response concerning income diversity. While all are welcome to comment on
these matters, the voice of a small nondiverse group cannot dominate the
discussion, since they do not represent the interests of the majority of
internet users, no matter how many years of experience they claim.

While some may claim that a few emails on this list suffices for a full
policy discussion, this is incorrect. What I am calling for is a formal
discussion concerning the impact of fcc nn policy on icann, something the
narrow, non minority and  financially compromised group seems to fear. We
are not talking about a discussion on celestial mechanics. Any claim that
we are is both incorrect and immature.

On Dec 6, 2017 2:56 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> wrote:

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
mandate.
​​


> "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.

​Cheers,

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20171206/75a4d2aa/attachment-0001.html>