[discuss] Net neutrality (censored input)

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 
non-neutrally ignored

Alliance FSP4NET
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.
>
>Louis,
>
>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 
>colonization.
>
>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).
>
>--
>Alliance FSP4NET
>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
>><http://www.open-root.eu/about-open-root/news/net-neutrality-and-quality-of-service>http://www.open-root.eu/about-open-root/news/net-neutrality-and-quality-of-service
>>
>>Abstract
>>
>>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 
>>its monopoly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140504/15b067e6/attachment.html>