<html>
<body>
Forwarded from the "alliance.fsp4net@gmail.com"
Multi-Stakeholder's common mail address, the repeated registrations of
which seem non-neutrally ignored <br><br>
Alliance FSP4NET<br>
<font size=1><i>All of the alliance members have an equal right to use
this mail box<br>
and received mails are copied to the alliance general mailing list.<br>
For a third day our repeated registration to the /1net and IANAtransition
mailing lists has not been acknowledged.</i></font> <br><br>
At 23:18 03/05/2014, alliance fsp4net wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Please forward to
lists.<br><br>
Louis,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
This means that we,<br><br>
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.<br>
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. <br><br>
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).<br><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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�.<br><br>
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). <br><br>
-- <br>
Alliance FSP4NET<br>
<font size=1><i>All of the alliance members have an equal right to use
this mail box<br>
and received mails are copied to the alliance general mailing
list.</i></font><br><br>
<font size=1><i>For a third day our repeated registration to the /1net
and IANAtransition mailing lists has not been acknowledged.</i></font>
<font size=1><i><br>
</i></font><br>
On 04:30 03/05/2014, Louis Pouzin (well) said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<h1><font size=4><b>Net Neutrality and Quality of
Service</b></font></h1><br><br>
Coalition on network neutrality, IGF 2013, Bali<br>
<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>
<br><br>
Abstract<br><br>
<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> </blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>