<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268709" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268717">I stand corrected.</span></div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268711"> </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268720"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268719">Nathalie </div></div><br> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268726"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268725"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268724"> <hr size="1"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268723"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> nathalie coupet <nathaliecoupet@yahoo.com>; Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>; Brian E. Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; 1Net List <discuss@1net.org>; Best Bits <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>; internetpolicy <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, March 9, 2015 7:16 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1425912198994_268729"><br><br>First, the name is not "Van Johansen", it is "Van Jacobson", I know<br>Van, he is very smart and has made great contributions to the<br>development of networking technology. He deserves to have his name<br>right!<br><br>The architecture being discussed is described here:<br><br> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking</a><br><br>where they call it "Named Data Networking".<br><br>The basic idea is straightforward enough:<br><br>Currently you access information on the internet by identifying its<br>location, usually indirectly.<br><br>Ultimately that location is identifed by an IP address such as<br>192.74.137.5.<br><br>*** IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN NOW SKIP FROM HERE ****<br><br>We usually don't use those directly so instead we might start with a<br>domain name such as www.TheWorld.com which DNS translates to that IP<br>address. Or a URI such as <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://www.TheWorld.com </a>(possibly with<br>further qualification.)<br><br>As a further indirection we might discover that is what we want via a<br>search engine or link in another document but nonetheless the goal is<br>that IP address no matter how many levels of indirection it takes to<br>arrive there.<br><br>At a lower level, once identified (located), our packets are routed to<br>that IP address probably passing through one or more routers.<br><br>That is how the internet works currently, in brief other than how<br>routing itself works.<br><br>*** TO HERE ****<br><br>IN THE PROPOSED scheme, Named Data Networking:<br><br>A unit of information, say an online book or movie, is identified not<br>by its location but by its content in some way.<br><br>*** YOU MIGHT BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL ***<br><br>*** OR YOU CAN SKIP TO HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN ***<br><br>So, for example, if I wanted to watch "Gone With The Wind" rather than<br>somehow (which is key!) discovering that I can watch it via the<br>Netflix service and locating netflix.com, etc I would simply say<br>something like "movie:gone with the wind" because that would be how it<br>is stored.<br><br>At some low level its location still has to be identified but I think<br>the key concept is that I, as the consumer, have not identified that<br>location (e.g., netflix.com). I only identified what it is I want,<br>that movie (or book, etc.)<br><br>So in the proposed scheme you remove (or supplement) the interface<br>everyone currently uses -- namely chasing down and identifying the<br>location of data -- which is done, ultimately, via IP address (and<br>routing to/from that address) and identify what you want only by its<br>content.<br><br>That is, again, rather than netflix.com and so forth you would only<br>say something like "move:gone with the wind" and let the mechanics of<br>the system get that for you.<br><br>You can read the wikipedia page for more detail. The devil is<br>certainly in the details of how this might be implemented and used.<br><br>*** AS PROMISED: HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN ***<br><br>It's not really like a CDN because CDNs are still answering requests<br>for data identified by location, they just are serving as a<br>short-circuit.<br><br>** YOU MIGHT REALLY BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL ***<br><br>That is, rather than proceeding to that location the CDN's nodes<br>intervene and respond with the location's content.<br><br>So if I want CNN's front page I say <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://www.cnn.com </a>and the CDN<br>intercepts that and says "here it is!" without my request having to<br>actually travel all the way to wherever CNN's servers lie.<br><br>But in a CDN you're still identifying content in terms of its<br>location.<br><br>As an extreme example if for some reason (e.g., hijacking!) CNN's<br>front page had only a copy of Gone With The Wind that's what the CDN<br>would hand you.<br><br>The CDN has no inherent understanding that you requested that location<br>because you wanted to see news headlines, you never said that, it was<br>only implied because you happen to know www.cnn.com should contain<br>news headlines.<br><br>The CDN only knows you requested whatever is at www.cnn.com, a<br>location, and handed you its contents presumably from a closer<br>(network-wise) location in the hope that is faster and reduces traffic<br>across the internet's backbone and the remote CNN servers.<br><br>But you will get whatever is at that location you named, you don't<br>indicate what you want.<br><br>*** EVERYTHING BELOW IS JUST QUOTED TEXT FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGES ***<br>*** AN ANNOYING CUSTOM ON THESE LISTS BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO ***<br>*** INCORPORATE PREVIOUS MESSAGE TEXT ONLY BY REFERENCE! ***<br><br>From: David Cake <<a ymailto="mailto:dave@difference.com.au" class="removed-link" href="">dave@difference.com.au</a>> >Is it just me, or does this<br>just sound like a very mild generalisation of t= >he idea of CDNs like<br>Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)= >? A concept<br>already in use by most large internet media providers?<br>><br>>It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of the netw=<br>>ork neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is approp=<br>>riate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth providers a=<br>>re heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in situations wh=<br>>ere some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive to prov=<br>>ide).<br>><br>>Cheers<br>><br>>David<br>><br>>On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet <<a ymailto="mailto:nathaliecoupet@yahoo.com" class="removed-link" href="">nathaliecoupet@yahoo.com</a>> wrot=<br>>e:<br>><br>>> According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should cha=<br>>nge from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two node=<br>>s at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stor=<br>>ed in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurrin=<br>>g at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of addresses=<br>> at the same time.<br>>> Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of househ=<br>>olds not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere.<br>>>=20<br>>> Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is refe=<br>>rring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality?<br>>>=20<br>>> Thanks,<br>>>=20<br>>> Nathalie<br>>>=20<br>>> From: Gary Kenward <<a ymailto="mailto:garykenward@ieee.org" class="removed-link" href="">garykenward@ieee.org</a>><br>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart <<a ymailto="mailto:nashton@consensus.pro" class="removed-link" href="">nashton@consensus.pro</a>><br>>> Cc: internetpolicy <<a ymailto="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org" class="removed-link" href="">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a>><br>>> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:19 AM<br>>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be defined neutrally<br>>>=20<br>>> Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure y=<br>>ou that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their pri=<br>>mary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service =<br>>and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv).<br>>>=20<br>>> To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a generally=<br>> satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can delive=<br>>r Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictu=<br>>res of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year =<br>>old communications technology.<br>>>=20<br>>>=20<br>>> Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose.<br>>>=20<br>>> The information contained in this document is private and confidential. T=<br>>his document is not to<br>>> be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of t=<br>>he author.<br>>>=20<br>>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart <<a ymailto="mailto:nashton@consensus.pro" class="removed-link" href="">nashton@consensus.pro</a>> wrote:<br>>>=20<br>>>> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about=<br>> business models is this:<br>>>>=20<br>>>> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decisi=<br>>on change their view if they weren't for-profit companies?<br>>>>=20<br>>>> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong oppositi=<br>>on from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, an=<br>>d charging services for priority is another way to maximise return.<br>>>>=20<br>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman <<a ymailto="mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net" class="removed-link" href="">mfidelman@meetinghouse.net</a>> wr=<br>>ote:<br>>>>=20<br>>>>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run mun=<br>>icipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's w=<br>>ho's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and meterin=<br>>g and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... Abo=<br>>ut the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small nu=<br>>mber of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a nation=<br>>al government.<br>>>>>=20<br>>>>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-o=<br>>f-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole space=<br>> and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in.<br>>>>>=20<br>>>>> Gary W Kenward wrote:<br>>>>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors.<br>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services wer=<br>>e in Canada and Europe, and I haven=92t seen anything that would suggest to=<br>>day=92s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier service=<br>>s, particularly at the municipal level.<br>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competiti=<br>>on laws.<br>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>> G<br>>>>>> */<br>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>> /*<br>>>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.<br>>>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PE=<br>>RMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC.<br>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman <<a ymailto="mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net" class="removed-link" href="">mfidelman@meetinghouse.net</a><m=<br>>ailto:<a ymailto="mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net" class="removed-link" href="">mfidelman@meetinghouse.net</a>>> wrote:<br>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>> It's called municipal broadband.<br>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad mo=<br>>del.<br>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman<br>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:<br>>>>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-p=<br>>rofit models for ISPs.<br>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski <<a ymailto="mailto:veni@veni.com" class="removed-link" href="">veni@veni.com</a> <mailto:veni=<br>>@veni.com> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:veni@veni.com" class="removed-link" href="">veni@veni.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and build=<br>>ing our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was ve=<br>>ry high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we di=<br>>dn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits...<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . <<a ymailto="mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck@gmail.com" class="removed-link" href="">ac5jw.kb5fck@gmail.com</a><mai=<br>>lto:<a ymailto="mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck@gmail.com" class="removed-link" href="">ac5jw.kb5fck@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck@gmail.com" class="removed-link" href="">ac5jw.kb5fck@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of<br>>>>>>>>> who paid for telephone calls.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> The conflict was that people who received telephone calls on<br>>>>>>>>> their mobile devices would get billed and charged for minutes and<br>>>>>>>>> for money when they received calls that they were unable to give<br>>>>>>>>> informed consent to in advance.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow<br>>>>>>>>> these lines.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> I am sure that the taxpayers are funding for some basic<br>>>>>>>>> telecommunications services to include Internet and that the<br>>>>>>>>> funding goes directly to telecommunications providers to maintain<br>>>>>>>>> a common system. At a minimum, all American taxpayers already<br>>>>>>>>> funding for the federal users of the Internet.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> I do not see having users on the Internet as a problem, because<br>>>>>>>>> the Internet serves them. I do have a problem with<br>>>>>>>>> double-dipping, where the man in the middle (providing the<br>>>>>>>>> communications) chooses to charge both entities higher and higher<br>>>>>>>>> rates while selling access to a common system of communication.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> I am concerned that at some point, the costs of provisioning and<br>>>>>>>>> building the system are amortized away and the resulting high<br>>>>>>>>> charges would just line the pockets of investors, service<br>>>>>>>>> providers, and speculators without going to improve the<br>>>>>>>>> infrastructure for everyone, to include new users coming online.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of<br>>>>>>>>> infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately<br>>>>>>>>> disserves the purpose of net neutrality.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> If the infrastructure is indeed improved upon, meaning more<br>>>>>>>>> bandwidth comes available and more users can access it, then the<br>>>>>>>>> service providers will continue to receive some taxpayer funding<br>>>>>>>>> and even a larger customer base for newly established private<br>>>>>>>>> accounts on the improved infrastructure. This might even be<br>>>>>>>>> considered a win-win opportunity for all to benefit.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Regards.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Amateur Earth Station AC5JW <<a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://www.qsl.net/ac5jw/</a>><br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles<br>>>>>>>>> Fidelman<<a ymailto="mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net" class="removed-link" href="">mfidelman@meetinghouse.net</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse" class="removed-link" href="">mfidelman@meetinghouse</a>=<br>>.net>>wrote:<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new<br>>>>>>>>> competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own<br>>>>>>>>> content services.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Richard Hill wrote:<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the<br>>>>>>>>> US because of the lack of competition in that country.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Best,<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Richard<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> *From:*InternetPolicy<br>>>>>>>>> [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org" class="removed-link" href="">internetpolicy-bounces@elists.isoc.org</a>] *On<br>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Veni Markovski<br>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41<br>>>>>>>>> *To:* Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m<br>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*<a ymailto="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org" class="removed-link" href="">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a> <mailto:internetpolicy=<br>>@elists.isoc.org><br>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be<br>>>>>>>>> defined neutrally<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> +1, as an ISP, we always wanted to build and offer more<br>>>>>>>>> bandwidth - not last reason was because our competitors<br>>>>>>>>> were doing the same. In the USA there's practically no<br>>>>>>>>> real competition - you choose between the cable company<br>>>>>>>>> (formerly tv), and the phone company (usually one). When<br>>>>>>>>> I moved there, I wanted to continue with my business, but<br>>>>>>>>> turned out regulations are made in such a way that they<br>>>>>>>>> don't allow competition. As a matter of fact, this past<br>>>>>>>>> week I saw a message that the government would allow the<br>>>>>>>>> creation of municipal networks, and the telcos protest as<br>>>>>>>>> this will be unfair competition...<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m<br>>>>>>>>> <<a ymailto="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" class="removed-link" href="">paf@frobbit.se</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" class="removed-link" href="">paf@frobbit.se</a>><mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:paf@frobbit" class="removed-link" href="">paf@frobbit</a>=<br>>.se>> wrote:<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<br>>>>>>>>> <<a ymailto="mailto:ocl@gih.com" class="removed-link" href="">ocl@gih.com</a> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ocl@gih.com" class="removed-link" href="">ocl@gih.com</a>><javascript:;>> wrote:<br>>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>> Is this really what happens? Is the ball solely in the<br>>>>>>>>> ISP court? I'd<br>>>>>>>>>> tend to think the responsibility is shared these days.<br>>>>>>>>> The explosion of<br>>>>>>>>>> video services has shown an incredible growth in<br>>>>>>>>> traffic which, if I was<br>>>>>>>>>> an ISP, I'd find very difficult to follow.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Why? A user can not use more than what the ISP connect<br>>>>>>>>> them with. If you get 1Mbps from your ISP you can not use<br>>>>>>>>> more than 1Mbps, right?<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>> Look at Netflix for example -<br>>>>>>>>>> accounting for 35% of all US Internet traffic during<br>>>>>>>>> peak periods?<br>>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-over=</a><br>>all-us-internet-traffic/<br>>>>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic?<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Sure, for an ISP an IP packet is an IP packet. Customers<br>>>>>>>>> want to use more of them so the ISP can sell more of them.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Once again, the issue you point at is that users get<br>>>>>>>>> 100Mbps (for example) and earlier used 1Mbps but now uses<br>>>>>>>>> 10Mbps. This implies the traffic in the network have<br>>>>>>>>> increased with a multiplier of 10 but the ISP do not get<br>>>>>>>>> more money. Simply because what the user uses is<br>>>>>>>>> unexpected but still "within" the product that the ISP<br>>>>>>>>> actually have sold.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing.<br>>>>>>>>> I am just explaining what I see the issue is.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> If an ISP has sold "up to 100Mbps" and users earlier did<br>>>>>>>>> use 1Mbps, but now 10Mbps, why would the ISP get money<br>>>>>>>>> from Netflix because the 9Mbps unexpected traffic is to<br>>>>>>>>> Netflix? Netflix already pays for the 9Mbps to their data<br>>>>>>>>> centers.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> Patrik<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> --<br>>>>>>>>> Best,<br>>>>>>>>> Veni<br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://veni.com </a><<a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://veni.com/</a>><br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://facebook.com/venimarkovski</a><br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://twitter.com/veni</a><br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> ***<br>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above<br>>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of<br>>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated<br>>>>>>>>> with or related to him in<br>>>>>>>>> any given way.<br>>>>>>>>> ***<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are<br>>>>>>>>> caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the<br>>>>>>>>> reason for using short words and phrases.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account<br>>>>>>>>> menu.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> --<br>>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.<br>>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> --<br>>>>>>>>> Best,<br>>>>>>>>> Veni<br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://veni.com </a><<a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://veni.com/</a>><br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://facebook.com/venimarkovski</a><br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://twitter.com/veni</a><br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> ***<br>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above<br>>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of<br>>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated<br>>>>>>>>> with or related to him in<br>>>>>>>>> any given way.<br>>>>>>>>> ***<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by t=<br>>he touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short words and =<br>>phrases.<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<br>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<br>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>> --<br>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.<br>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra<br>>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<br>>>>>>=20<br>>>>>=20<br>>>>>=20<br>>>>> --<br>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.<br>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra<br>>>>>=20<br>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<br>>>>=20<br>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<br>>>=20<br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,<br>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.<br>>>=20<br>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>> <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net." class="removed-link" href="">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.</a><br>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>>> <a target="_blank" class="removed-link" href="">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>