<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mark’s article is good, but it is not clear to me that everybody agrees on what would be an appropriate “multi-stakeholder approach” for this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If you think that in a “multi-stakeholder approach” decisions should only be made with the full consensus of all stakeholders, then I doubt that you will ever get meaningful network neutrality regulation, because some sectors of industry will likely oppose the regulation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In my view, the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order was an excellent example of implementing the multi-stakeholder model outlined in article 35 of the Tunis Agenda, which states that “a. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States.” Since it seems to me that network neutrality is a public policy issue, it seems correct to me that the final decision is made by government authorities who, after extensive consultation with all stakeholders, implement laws passed by parliament and whose decisions are reviewed by an independent judiciary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces@elists.isoc.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dan York<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 9, 2017 17:39<br><b>To:</b> vinton cerf<br><b>Cc:</b> ISOC Chapter Delegates<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Chapter-delegates] Should ISOC support Net Neutrality in the U.S.?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To this point made by Vint, John and Evan, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>On Jul 8, 2017, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf <<a href="mailto:vgcerf@gmail.com">vgcerf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><snip><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The better solution would be an Internet Title expressing NN rules in an amended Telecom act but the present Congress seems an unlikely place in which to achieve passage of such legislation. <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I would encourage people to read Mark Buell's post about "What net neutrality is (and isn't)":<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/north-america-bureau/2017/05/what-net-neutrality-and-isnt">https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/north-america-bureau/2017/05/what-net-neutrality-and-isnt</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dan<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>--<br>Dan York<br>Senior Manager, Content & Web Strategy, Internet Society<br><a href="mailto:york@isoc.org">york@isoc.org</a> +1-603-439-0024 <br>Jabber: <a href="mailto:york@jabber.isoc.org">york@jabber.isoc.org</a> Skype: danyork <a href="http://twitter.com/danyork">http://twitter.com/danyork</a><br><br><a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/">http://www.internetsociety.org/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>