[discuss] Naming and Shaming

[Mike Roberts]

Wolfgang did us all a great service by drafting and posting his “PINGO” document over the weekend (Circle ID).

Perhaps the most important part of the text is:

"But never before in the history of Internet Governance there was a document with Internet Governance principles which had such a broad political support from key players from all stakeholder groups. Insofar, regardless of its legal nature, this document could soon become a main reference point for the evaluation of the use of Internet. There is no mechanism to bring a wrongdoer to an Internet court, but the NETmundial document allows "naming and shaming" if a government or a corporation does behave badly in cyberspace.”

This evening, we have an excellent example of the power of :naming and shaming,”

Over the past ten days, there has been a growing condemnation of the proposal of FCC Chaiman Wheeler to allow “paid prioritization,” on the US Internet, which amounts to the creation of fast and slow lanes on the net.

According to the note below - from CNET -  this “naming and shaming” has forced a revision in Chairman Wheeler’s thinking.   Food for thought as we go forward with IANA transition.

"The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has revised details of its proposed plan to rewrite Net neutrality to add assurances that Internet service providers will not be able to segregate Internet traffic into fast and slow lanes, according to the Wall Street Journal.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is expected to reveal the new proposal as early as Monday, the Journal reported. The rules revision is an apparent attempt to quell concern that broadband providers will be allowed to degrade traffic speeds to some sites while allowing other sites to strike deals that assure preferential delivery of their web content to customers.

While not a dramatic revision of Wheeler's proposal, the new draft is expected to include language that will allow the FCC to ensure that broadband providers don't degrade the traffic of nonpaying customers. The new proposal will also seek comment on whether such "paid prioritization" should be prohibited altogether.”



- Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140511/3369da8d/attachment.html>