[discuss] Network neutrality language
mg at telepresse.com
Fri May 2 22:44:19 UTC 2014
At 23:40 02/05/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:
>Let's not give ourselves credit for more knowledge about how to deal
>with net neutrality than we possess.
An interesting debate occurs right now among the fsp4.net alliance
concerning the icannet neutrality I would like to confirm.
It seems that there are more than 24 hours that repeated
subscriptions of the mail address "alliance.fsp4net at gmail.com" as a
single MS point of entry is ignored both on /1net and IANAtransition
1. is it true?
2. how is this filtering organized and by who?
3. it would be quite interesting if an advanced MSist practical
experimentation (a single mail origin being ued in an MS manner for
an operational MS group/enhanced cooperation) would be prevented to
join lists that claim to be ICANN active epitomes and test-beds of
the post-NTIA IANA MSism.
This filtering - if it is real (?) - is seen as a justification of
the distrust in the possibility of a neutral/democratic MS process
for the internet governance if it is to be managed by orgaizations
subject to an US juridication rather than by an international
independent body with its own ombudsman, arbitration and appeal
procedure. This seems a reasonable objection: the only possibility
they claim to have is to sue ICANN in order to force them to behave
ethically or to publish that their MS process is not on an equal
footing for all.
An interesting proposition has been made. The way
alliance.fs4pnet at gmail.com mail address is to work is that every
alliance stakeholder has the password and can send mails on behalf of
the alliance. On the receiving case,mails should be forwarded to the
alliance's mailing list.
The proposition is to give the password to Lawrence Strickling, so he
might register the address on these two lists and see what (does not)
happen by himelf, The press, they claim, and this is interesting
indeed, could simply observe if he accepts, or on the countrary if he
subscribes to the ICANN conception of a multi biaised stakeholderism
(MBS) and refuses.
More information about the discuss