[Chapter-delegates] Possible collaboration on events

Sat Apr 10 11:03:33 PDT 2010

I think we are confusing the public, should we be spending valuable
resources, money on going out there to redefine the term Net Neutrality?

As for Comcast vs FCC, FCC had a terrible legal team here, the result is
killing ants with DDT which means now Comcast and other providers to follow
can use this decision to hamper progress under the blanket of "network
management practice". This blow to the FCC is so great that I think we have
no chance on getting the US governments support in the future for IPv6. I
see that there will be a need in a few years to involve the US government to
push providers to to IPv6 and the FCC should be in a position to regulate
something like this, just as they did with cutting off analog TV. The
current administration realizes that Internet is no different to the
national telephone system or television.

One of the key arguments used in Comcast Vs FCC by Comcast was "Preserving
Bandwidth". Can't providers now use this to hamper IPv6 progress? Putting an
IP address on a device is Network Management, the IPv6 packet is larger and
I am sure you can tie all this to excessive bandwidth usage. Imagine a
company doing a video application on IPv6 only. Vendors and providers are
already complaining that they can't keep up with upgrading all their
hardware to IPv6 compatibility, do we now have another loophole?

Zaid

On 4/9/10 11:59 AM, "Sally Wentworth" <wentworth at isoc.org> wrote:

> Just to weigh in on this very good discussion.  As we think about this set
> of issues, ISOC has chosen not to focus on net neutrality per se but instead
> to emphasize the objective: open inter-networking.  Joly correctly pointed
> out that this is consistent with our emphasis on the user-centric Internet.
> The open architecture of the Internet enables growth, innovation and the
> delivery of new services and applications.  This is the heart of what we
> want to preserve.
> 
> We don't deny that the term "net neutrality" is a popular term of art - the
> challenge is that it is ill-defined and has come to mean so many different
> things to many different people.  So rather than becoming embroiled in the
> debate over the term net neutrality, we've chosen to focus on Open
> Inter-networking.
> 
> As to the recent court ruling in Comcast v. FCC, the decision did not go to
> the merits of network management or to the FCC's proposed rules on Open
> Internet.  Instead, the ruling focuses on whether the FCC's legal
> jurisdiction extends to ISP network management practices.  The court
> determined that the existing law does not give the FCC jurisdiction.
> 
> There is much speculation on how this will impact pending decisions at the
> FCC regarding implementation of the National Broadband Plan and rules
> regarding the Open Internet.  It will be very interesting to see how this
> plays out over the coming weeks/months.   Happy to keep you informed as
> things develop.
> 
> Sally
> 
> 
> Sally Shipman Wentworth
> Regional Bureau Manager, North America
> Internet Society (ISOC)
> (703) 439-2146
> wentworth at isoc.org
> www.isoc.org
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
> [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:56 PM
> To: Zaid Ali
> Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org; David Solomonoff
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Possible collaboration on events
> 
> My understanding is we may use the word but we don't necessarily support the
> principle, as it a blunt-edged instrument that may inhibit innovation.  ISOC
> takes the wider view of user-centricity of which open-networking is a vital
> component.
> 
> As far as the court case goes it wasn't about NN at all, it was about the
> power of the FCC to regulate ISPs. It was found that no such power had ever
> been granted by Congress.
> 
> j
> 
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid at sfbayisoc.org> wrote:
>> We would like to but I am a little confused on using "Net Neutrality".
>> Do we (as ISOC, chapters et al) use the work "Net Neutrality" or Open
>> Inter-networking? I guess I am a little confused as I have not seen
>> anything official from ISOC on Net Neutrality since the court ruling
> Comcast vs FCC.
>> 
>> Zaid
>> 
>> On 4/8/10 11:32 AM, "David Solomonoff" <president at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Do any other Chapters have plans for events covering these hot topics?
>>> 
>>>     * US Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit decision on net
>>> neutrality
>>>       in Comcast v. FCC
>>>     * Efforts to reform and update the Electronic Communications
>>> Privacy
>>>       Act (ECPA)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If so, perhaps the New York Chapter could collaborate/participate
> remotely.
>>> 
>>> David
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
> http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
> 