<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>For me the bare minimum, is to disclose. In the pure spirit of liberalism, the market will adapt, and keep what the people want. In a more socialist way, the government may need to intervene when there is no competition, or a balanced market.<br><br>For balanced market, I mean, this is what we suffer a bit here, we have the government and the industry, very little user representation. We hope with the Pacific Islands Chapter we improve the user representation.<br><br>However some tips (BCP) on how to handle traffic, could be interesting, especially for smaller ISPs who can ill afford the research of what works. I try to point them on some Security BCP (38 mainly), which is always a good start<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net><br>To: "Franck Martin" <franck@sopac.org><br>Cc: "Gene Gaines" <gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com>, "David Farber" <dave@farber.net>, "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org><br>Sent: Thursday, 21 August, 2008 10:52:27 PM GMT +12:00 Fiji<br>Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [from IP] FCC Order on Comcast - a good job<br><br>
HI Franck (and everyone)<div><br></div><div>I generally try not to post to everyone, but I must comment the FCC judgments - all five of them. To discuss what the FCC actually found, please do read all five - starting with the decision of the Chair. A few things are very clear from the judgments. The first is that the FCC absolutely has no problem with carriers and ISPs managing congestion on their networks - and if that means prioritising packets - so be it. It was THE WAY that Comcast did it - and didn't tell its customers what they were doing, nor their competitors, that was the problem</div><div><br></div><div>For those who have read the ISOC statement on Net Neutrality - the FCC decision clearly does not support pure net neutrality - there can be discrimination between packets - as long as it is for legitimate purposes including congestion management and customers are told what is happening.</div><div><br></div><div>I too applaud their decision - they recognise both the need for an open and non-discriminatory access to the net - and that it be within sensible boundaries of managing congestion.</div><div><br></div><div>So read what I think are very sensible majority judgments (Tate is somewhere in the middle) and enjoy</div><div><br></div><div><div>Kind regards</div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>Holly Raiche</div><div>Executive Director,</div><div>Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)</div><div><a href="mailto:ed@isoc-au.org.au" target="_blank">ed@isoc-au.org.au</a></div><div>Mob: 0412 688 544</div><div>Ph: (02) 9436 2149</div><div><b style="font-weight: bold;"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></b></div><div><i style="font-style: italic;">The Internet is For Everyone</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><div><div>On 21/08/2008, at 7:20 AM, Franck Martin wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This seems to me the call for a Best Practice document?<br><br>It would be interesting (?), if the chapters with help of ISOC staff (?) were initiating such a draft to submit to IETF?<br><br>May be someone, more familiar with IETF could give some pointers to similar documents?<br><br>Franck Martin<br>ICT Specialist<br><a href="mailto:franck@sopac.org" target="_blank">franck@sopac.org</a><br>SOPAC, Fiji<br>GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320<br>"Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Gene Gaines" <gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com><br>To: "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org><br>Cc: "David Farber" <dave@farber.net><br>Sent: Thursday, 21 August, 2008 5:42:30 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji<br>Subject: [Chapter-delegates] [from IP] FCC Order on Comcast - a good job<br><br><div dir="ltr">Message (below) sent by David Reed to David Farber's IP list.<br><br>The U.S. FCC has taken many missteps in recent years; I am<br>very pleased to see this excellent FCC decision finding Comcast <br>guilty of misusing Internet protocols to slow down P2P traffic.<br> <br>This puts the whole issue of integrity of fair use of the Internet<br>where it should be -- Not in "Net Neutrality" but rather in terms<br>of "Internet Neutrality as defined by Internet protocols".<br> <br>It is the IETF and its open, participative engineering protocol<br>development process that should be defining use and operation <br>of the Internet, not a committee of any political body.<br><br>This brings home to me again the importance of the IETF and ISOC.<br> <br>Free flow of information is as important to me as the air I breathe. <br><br>How could I live without it?<br><br>Gene Gaines<br>Sterling, Virginia USA<br><br>Begin forwarded message:<br> <br> From: "David P. Reed" <<a href="mailto:dpreed@reed.com" target="_blank">dpreed@reed.com</a>><br> Date: August 20, 2008 12:09:08 PM EDT<br> To: David Farber <<a href="mailto:dave@farber.net" target="_blank">dave@farber.net</a>><br> Subject: FCC Order on Comcast - a good job<br> <br> Dave - I just posted this on my blog, regarding the FCC opinion and order about Comcast RST injection. Your readers might be interested.<br> <br> -David P. Reed<br> ------------------------------<div id=":14p" class="ArwC7c ckChnd">----<br> <br> Permalink: <a href="http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=12" target="_blank">http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=12</a><br> <br> FCC Order on Comcast - a good job <<a href="http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=12" target="_blank">http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?p=12</a>><br> <br> The FCC today issued its formal opinion and order in regard to Comcast's degrading of P2P and other traffic using DPI and RST injection <<a href="http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/Comments%20on%20FCC%20order%20FCC-08-183A1" target="_blank">http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/Comments%20on%20FCC%20order%20FCC-08-183A1</a>>. Of course, I've been very interested in this, especially since I was asked by the Commission to testify as a witness at the en banc hearing at Harvard Law School in February.<br> <br> After reading the order this morning, I felt like commending the FCC - so I filed a formal comment with the FCC, and I posted it on my site <<a href="http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?page_id=10" target="_blank">http://www.reed.com/blog-dpr/?page_id=10</a>> as well. The decision is a good decision for the Internet. In short here's why:<br> <br> The decision shows that the agency understands the importance of the technological principles of the Internet's design.<br> <br> The Internet is a /world-wide system that does not belong to any one operator/, whether providing access lines or backbone transport.<br> <br> The design of the Internet Protocols specifies clear limits on what operators can and cannot do to Internet Protocol datagrams when those operators are acting as part of the Internet.<br> <br> Not obeying those limits poses a serious risk to the continued success of the world-wide Internet. Happily, the FCC recognized and exposed Comcast's transgressions of those limits.<br> <br> Though Internet design is not a law, the Commission's order respects the importance of that design, and rejects Comcast's misbehavior and deception in applying technologies that go against the principles of that design.<br> <br> </div><br></div> <br>_______________________________________________ Chapter-delegates mailing list Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates </div><div style="margin: 0px;">_______________________________________________</div><div style="margin: 0px;">Chapter-delegates mailing list</div><div style="margin: 0px;"><a href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org" target="_blank">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><a href="http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates" target="_blank">http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a></div> </blockquote></div><br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><div><br></div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span></span></span></span></span> </div><br></div></div></div></body></html>