FCC scraps net neutrality

[farzaneh badii]

The topic of this discussion was specifically about net neutrality and FCC.
The current discussion has nothing to do with ICANN. Framing registrars
neutrality under the rubric of net neutrality is good discussion to be had.
But I prefer not to have it here because this thread was about FCC actions
on net neutrality. Which has nothing to do with us.

One of the main problems we have at NCSG is that we have many members who
are not very clear on what is it that we exactly do. As the chair of NCSG I
feel responsible to clarify what is it that we do and not to confuse them
with other Internet governance issues that they cannot really affect
through NCSG.

We are a stakeholder group at ICANN. we work on policy regarding generic
domain names at ICANN.  We do not have the bandwidth nor the mandate to
affect broader Internet governance issues. We don't work on fiber optics
and broad band and mobile Internet. And not net neutrality as it is framed
and discussed at the moment here.

we lack volunteers in various policy working groups. Where we actually can
have an effect. Lets join those groups and bring real change to ICANN
policy. If you want to talk about registrars' neutrality and the role of
ICANN, there are ample opportunities for that we dedicated much time of
NCUC sessions to that concept and I will try my best to provide platform to
discuss this issue with ICANN even more if the group agrees to do so. But
this thread was not about that.




Farzaneh

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> While I agree with Farzaneh that domestic policy disputes over the
> regulation of ISPs are outside ICANN’s scope, the net neutrality ideal _
> *can*_ be relevant to domain name policy.
>
>
>
> A long time ago, one of NCUC’s earliest campaigns was to  “keep the core
> neutral” – we were asking ICANN to not make content-based decisions when
> deciding on new TLD applications. That was in 2007. See this from Robin
> Gross’s website: http://www.ipjustice.org/digital-rights/063007-keep-
> core-neutral/  Of course, due to pressure from GAC – and our friends in
> ALAC – ICANN did not take that path.
>
>
>
> More recently, we (IGP) floated the idea of “registrar neutrality” with
> regard to disabling or suspending names due to the content of websites. See
> that paper here: https://www.internetgovernance.org/
> research/search-amoral-registrars-content-regulation-domain-name-policy/
>
>
>
> If you are concerned about Internet access and neutrality, there is plenty
> for you to do in ICANN.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
> [image: IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf Of
> *farzaneh badii
> *Sent:* Monday, December 4, 2017 4:05 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: FCC scraps net neutrality
>
>
>
> Thank you Mr. Aggrwal for your note. However I have to disagree with you
> and remind our current members and our new members that: NCSG and its
> constituencies  do not have a lot of resources. Moreover, topics such as
> Net Neutrality are not related to our work. We work on domain name policy,
> specifically generic domain name policy.
>
>
>
> It is very important to remind ourselves what our mission here is and what
> we work on. We should not create false hope that anything regarding net
> neutrality, Internet access (infrastructure) can be solved through NCSG. We
> work on an important but limited aspect of Internet which is called generic
> domain name.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Vaibhav Aggarwal, Catalyst & Group CEO <
> va at bladebrains.com> wrote:
>
> Well yes this is overwhelming. But If we have such a strong case, for a
> large, (quite a few) well funded community like ours, then we should have
> some data, stats and presentation prepared, and file a law suit in any
> court around the world and stall the process for a larger dialogue as Net
> Access is a global Issue (Subject) now. In my opinion, it will definitely
> empower the communities' stand on this.
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> -VA
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2017, at 10:53 PM, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
> *Trump’s FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, just released his plan to kill net
> neutrality.*
>
> Pai’s plan scraps the legal requirements underpinning Title II regulations
> and opens the door to internet slow lanes and monopolies over broadband
> networks.1
>
> And Pai has scheduled a December 14 vote—just three weeks from now—to
> approve his plan.
>
> Pai has said that he believes that Big Cable should regulate itself when
> it comes to the free and open internet.
>
> *But even with net neutrality rules in place, companies such as Verizon,
> AT&T, and Comcast have broken the regulations over and over and over.* In
> just two years, the FCC has received more than 40,000 net neutrality
> complaints from consumers.2
>
> If Title II protections are allowed to be overturned, we will go back to
> the days when Big Cable throttled websites based on what internet companies
> paid, blocked traffic to sites that competed with their own services, and
> redirected sites without user permission—all with impunity.
>
>
>
> Kris
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171205/94b5e8fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3030 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171205/94b5e8fd/attachment.jpg>