[discuss] Net neutrality (censored input)
alliance at fsp4.net
Sun May 4 00:46:31 UTC 2014
Forwarded from the "alliance.fsp4net at gmail.com" Multi-Stakeholder's
common mail address, the repeated registrations of which seem
All of the alliance members have an equal right to use this mail box
and received mails are copied to the alliance general mailing list.
For a third day our repeated registration to the /1net and
IANAtransition mailing lists has not been acknowledged.
At 23:18 03/05/2014, alliance fsp4net wrote:
>Please forward to lists.
>You are right. There are multiple network strata and layers: we
>consider your Catenet framework, the Internet protocol set, and our
>VGN complexity: the virtual networks of the networks of networks. As
>pragmatic internet Intelligent Use (IUse) Independent Users
>(IUsers), we do not object to the legal non-neutralities, the
>purpose of which is to protect us and our privacy on an end to end
>basis as democratically discussed and voted for by our Parliaments
>where the national debates belong, unless the topic becomes digital
>What we demand is a Human Right that no one except us seems to
>demand: the right to not receive what we do not want. No spam, no
>boring ads, no unbalancing "services and advantages", nothing that
>can affect the fringe to fringe QoS, in particular no edge provider
>interference except if we contracted it. We call ISP rotation the
>use of two or more access providers that we can rotate on a random
>basis: we technically define fringe to fringe neutrality between two
>end points (cf. SCTP) as the QoS stability to ISP rotation on both fringes.
>This means that we,
>1. pragmatically accept the legal non-neutrality concept that most
>of the countries have inherited from State monopolies as something
>to keep as low as possible and equal to all, subject to the national
>regalian and sovereign (democratic) policy.
>2. and have to optimize our VGN deployment along unequal commercial
>competition rules in the extremely reduced number of countries, such
>as the USA, where non-neutrality is the definition of the internet
>as enhanced/value-added services in opposition to neutral services
>by the historic monopoly legacy.
>In so doing, we balance the various pros and cons of State
>precaution, societal cyber protection, democratic equal footing, and
>commercial competition affecting the catenet with the various
>priorities, choices, and policies of our different individual VGNs.
>Our worry is when the services (edge provider pollution), political
>(NTIA), industrial (ICANN), and technical (RFC 6852) governances
>attempt to structurally unbalance our self-determination capacity as
>VGN managers, as they are demonstrating right now through their
>discriminatory filtering of this MS debate. (cf. signature).
>We are also concerned when commercial interests want to be able to
>challenge States' sovereignties and some States associate themselves
>with this effort (TPP/TAFTA) trying to submit States' sovereign
>decisions to other States' decisions, judgments, or influences
>through a so-called hyper-liberal MS approach that leaves the
>catenet and us unprotected in front of economic dominants (Sao
>Paulo) under a costly, time consuming, foreign remote, resultantly
>imperial, and jurisdiction (NTIA strategy) subject to a
>non-democratic (US-citizen elected only US Congress) law.
>We are afraid when edge providers find allies everywhere in order to
>reduce the network neutrality to a "bug" to be considered outside of
>the constitutional NETmundial attempt. While it is an internet
>architectural "feature" that results from the its end to end lack of
>OSI presentation layer six, some of us want to see it implemented
>through a fringe to fringe multitechnology IUI (Intelligent Use
>Interface) networking and others through an end-point nodes oriented
>IUse VGN "over-architecture".
>This encourages us in our call for, and work toward, a fail-secure
>plan for the net, aiming at keeping our fringe to fringe relational
>needs preserved from risks of radical monopolies (cf. Ivan Illich)
>at the catenet edges (providers and gateways), name racketeering
>(DNS restrictions) and protocol bias (NSA, RFC reading frigidity).
>All of the alliance members have an equal right to use this mail box
>and received mails are copied to the alliance general mailing list.
>For a third day our repeated registration to the /1net and
>IANAtransition mailing lists has not been acknowledged.
>On 04:30 03/05/2014, Louis Pouzin (well) said:
>>Net Neutrality and Quality of Service
>>Coalition on network neutrality, IGF 2013, Bali
>>The original meaning of the word internet has drifted from packet
>>switching infrastructure to anything using it. Net neutrality has
>>no technical definition. We summarize the positions of operators,
>>content providers and users. The lack of well defined operator
>>service and non committing contracts generate suspicion and
>>frustration among users. Content providers and operators are
>>reluctant to invest in network upgrades. Managing services by QoS
>>lets users choose their own end to end quality across nets.
>>Finally, ICANN keeps a lock on its non-neutral DNS for protecting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss