<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Louis,</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Thanks. I have questions about section 8: closed internet</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">What has ICANN or Verisign got to do with net neutrality?</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">The statement below is a wild claim unrelated to the subject</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">"</span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Being under US gov proclaimed jurisdiction, the ICANN DNS content is monitored, if not altered, out of users knowledge. Personal and confidential information can be collected when the root servers are used. Hence some users have solid reasons for not using the ICANN DNS. Anyhow, denying users their choice of DNS is an attempt to privacy, and an abuse of dominant position."</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Nii</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><br>On May 3, 2014, at 2:30, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <<a href="mailto:pouzin@well.com">pouzin@well.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><div><div dir="ltr"><h1><font size="4">Net Neutrality and Quality of Service</font></h1><p>Coalition on network neutrality, IGF 2013, Bali</p><p><a href="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</a></p>
<p>Abstract</p><p><b>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.</b>
</p><p>- - -<br></p><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Mike Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us" target="_blank">mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">If there is to be progress on net neutrality, the advocates for it need to take a full stop and review the technical reality of what is before us. The search for convenient one-liners is leading many astray, including legislatures.<br>
<br>
Brian’s note touches the tip of the iceberg.<br>
<br>
Reality also includes legal and regulatory reality. Enforceable good behavior by providers involves more than arm waving. Especially since the law of unintended consequences is almost guaranteed to operate in such a fast changing environment.<br>
<br>
Remember how certain we were in the US about how breaking AT&T into intra-lata and inter-lata halves was going to be the perfect cure for monopoly? Funny how it didn’t turn out that way. Billions were spent driving wedges through switching centers in search of competition. What actually happened was that packet switching on fiber links destroyed circuit switching and the empires that had grown up around it.<br>
<br>
The FCC has lost twice in the courts trying to find a statutorily acceptable solution to Open Internet challenges. And consumed a half dozen years in the process. Chairman Wheeler is getting it from all sides as he seeks a fresh approach that will not be turned around in court yet again. A “feel good” solution that is reversed in 2018, leaving us then where we are now doesn’t sound exciting, does it?<br>
<br>
Let’s not give ourselves credit for more knowledge about how to deal with net neutrality than we possess.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
- Mike</font></span><br></blockquote></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>discuss mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>