<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{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>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p>Widely understood by you and who else? </p>
<p>And does whoever it is know routing a. Doc peering much? </p>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p style="margin: 10pt 0; color: black;">On 22 March 2014 10:31:51 pm
"michael gurstein" <gurstein@gmail.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"><div
class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I’m
not sure why it might be a “snide
insinuation”…<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'>It
seems quite explicit that the IETF and ISOC, two of the major pillars of
multistakeholderism which is so vehemently being promoted by the US
Government and its followers in the tech and civil society communities as a
replacement for democratic governance of the Internet, have long histories
of accepting payments from Comcast a major US corporation which is widely
understood as being among the least ethical and possibly most active in
undermining US policy and regulatory processes in support of its own narrow
economic self-interests (increasingly encompassing the
Internet).<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'><a
href="http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comcasts-real-life-house-of-cards-238904">http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/corruption-distortion-control-comcasts-real-life-house-of-cards-238904</a><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><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/">InfoWorld Home</a> / <a
href="http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x.-cringely">Notes from the
Field</a> / Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's... <o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal><a
href="http://www.infoworld.com/blogs/robert-x-cringely"><span
style='text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=536 height=68
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part966.144eace0088.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net"
alt="Robert X. Cringely"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>March
21, 2014<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span
style='font-size:24.0pt'>Corruption, distortion, control: Comcast's
real-life 'House of Cards'<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span
style='font-size:18.0pt'>The frenzy over the proposed Time Warner merger
hides damning details of Comcast's power-hungry
moves<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>By <a
href="http://www.infoworld.com/author-bios/robert-x-cringely">Robert X.
Cringely</a> | <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/"
target="_blank">InfoWorld</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Let's talk about
Comcast, he said, hands trembling and the big vein in his forehead
throbbing like a jungle drum. I hit the FCC's <a
href="http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/railroads-superhighways-and-the-fight-fair-access-237815">Net
neutrality delusion</a> in a previous post, where FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
interpreted the Supreme Court's Net neutering decision as giving the FCC
even broader powers of control over the big Internet providers instead of
the steel-toed kick to his crotch it really is. Complete double-talk seems
to the standard for the Internet provider business these
days.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Comcast is a
perfect example of a we-don't-care, double-talking, slavering, rampaging
telecom/cable monstrosity that's using this consumer-crippling legislation
to topple our competitive choices like Godzilla strolling through Tokyo.
It's only going to get worse. Sure, there are tinfoil hats preaching
ridiculous Comcast conspiracies, but maybe the wingnuts are on to
something, even if they're starting out from pothead
premises.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The deal that's
been in the news the most recently is Comcast's move to devour Time Warner
Cable. You'd think Time Warner might not be superhappy about this deal, but
its CEO, Rob Marcus, got up at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet and
Telecom Conference held earlier this month in the highly industrious locale
of Palm Beach, Fla., and enthused that the $45 billion merger will put all
of us in happy-happy land.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Newsflash: It
won't. Rather, get ready to be dumped into hugely-screwed-douche-broom
land. The deal means that Comcast is set to service about two-thirds of the
American population with both Internet and entertainment. How many of those
folks are going to have an actual, practical choice?<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>Comcast
spreads it tentacles</b><br>Tellingly Marcus has been Time Warner's CEO for
only about two months, and recently leaked information on his compensation
package shows that he stands to make robber baron money if the merger goes
through -- to the tune of about <a
href="http://bgr.com/2014/03/20/comcast-twc-merger-news-ceo-marcus/"
target="_blank">$80 million</a>. How could he possibly be biased? I know
I'm a cynical old fart, but is it loony to suspect that Comgraft may have
had a hand in getting this guy a key to the executive bathroom? If there
was any justice, he'd have to write a resignation letter right this minute
with ink made from rectal blood and salty tears.<o:p></o:p></p><p
class=MsoNormal
style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The fate of U.S.
Internet pipes isn't all that's on the block. With Net laws castrated as
they currently are, Comcast can also opt to bully content providers and
control what you can and can't access on what amounts to its Internet. In a
recent blog post, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sounds like he's complaining
about this trend -- never mind he's already validated it. Netflix
complained of degraded throughput to its customers about a month ago, then
paid Com-lie an exorbitant extortion fee, and presto! Its service quality
was magically restored. Hastings and Comcast paint this as a big win for
consumers, but they're actually saying we're as dumb as a bag of
hammers…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Doesn’t
seem very snide or insinuatory to me…<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'>And
yes, most non-corrupted public policy processes are publicly funded with
appropriate degrees of transparency and accountability and with clear
boundaries between public interests and private interests guarded with
varying degrees of ferocity by laws governing conflicts of interest and
suborning of public officials and public policy processes. What
isn’t made clear in the overwhelming forces and banshee howling of
support for MSism is that at its heart it is an attempt to foist the
generally acknowledged as corrupted US telecom policy and regulatory system
on the Internet and on the world.<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'>And
a question for you and all the other multistakeholderists—is this
what you want for Global Internet Governance?<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'>M<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><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"'>
discuss-bounces@1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org] <b>On Behalf Of
</b>McTim<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:07 AM<br><b>To:</b>
Michel Gauthier<br><b>Cc:</b> 1Net List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [discuss]
FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p
class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Michel Gauthier <<a
href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com" target="_blank">mg@telepresse.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>At 02:45 22/03/2014, McTim
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If you are trying to make an
argument by quoting rfc3869 and then quoting a page from the ISOC website I
think you will have to do better than that, as one is related to research
and the Comcast partnership is about IETF meetings and other activities.
ISOC itself doesn't do research in the way that DNS-OARC or CAIDA or
others do it. ISOC does surveys mainly and recently economic effects of
IXPs, etc.<br><br>If you would prefer public funding for IETF activities,
then please state that, otherwise, one can't tell what your argument is all
about.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p
class=MsoNormal>I only do my collection, analysis and reporting job after
sorting real, tricky, naive and noisy inputs, on this and other equivalent
lists or fora where real infuencing strategies are observable.
<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>So far,
you are not even speculating that there is an 'influencing strategy",
you are merely posting random factoids seemingly in support of the other
MGs snide insinuations.<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><blockquote
style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>To my knowledge DNS-OARC is a private club
<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This has
nothing to do with what I pointed out about them, that they do research of
the kind that you suggested that the IETF does.<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><blockquote
style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p
class=MsoNormal>of which the interest in users support is characterized by
its <a href="https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy"
target="_blank">https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy</a> page
which states: "On August 7, 2008, <a
href="http://www.ioactive.com/kaminsky.html" target="_blank">Dan
Kaminsky</a> will release additional details about these poisoning attacks.
"<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>another
tangental red-herring.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote
style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>CAIDA membership is beyond financial access to FLOSS
IUsers and corporations interested in their market, what is my focussed
area. <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This
doesn't mask the fact that they do research on 'future Internet
issues"<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>My
question to you still stands.<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>How
would you like the IETF to be funded??<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal>rgds,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal>McTim<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></div></div></div></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>