IEEE-Board25 Societies fight increased staff power. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers does extraordinary work, from broadcasting the world's best 5G Conference to setting the standards for Wi-Fi and so much else. The IEEE Communications Society publications are by far the most prestigious in the field. Their oral histories can be fascinating. The work on making royalties reasonable benefits all of us but the poor most of all. It's long been a member-driven organization, with volunteers staffing the editorial boards and many other positions in the organization. So when the below note from UCLA Professor Ali Sayed came across the IP list, I did some basic research.

There are obviously some issues not apparent in the public statements, so I'd welcome private comments from readers. Putting the Executive Director on the Board would seem a minor change, although that's been cast as a symbol. More important is consolidating power in the existing board, apparently close to the senior staff. The new election model is likely to reduce the powers of the regions. That's the wrong move as the majority of the Internet is now in the developing world. The reasons presented are vague notions of efficiency, not concrete improvements in what IEEE does.

I do not know enough about the issues to have an opinion on the merits. But the opposition of 25 IEEE societies suggests a breakdown in governance that would be best addressed by pulling back the changes.

The Communications Society writes, "There is a risk that the proposed changes, like the Constitutional Amendment, will shift too much power from IEEE members to IEEE Corporate Staff." The Computer Society believes, "The proposed constitution changes remove membership control of the IEEE structure." The Power Electronics Society warns, "the proposed changes may threaten the very existence of IEEE as a volunteer-driven technical professional society." The Washington, DC Section analysis the changes, "will result in mechanical approval of the list of candidates compiled by the existing Board."

The paid staff of every organization I've been in thinks they can do a better job if they consolidate power. They are wrong. Time to get the egos out of the way.

From Ali Sayed

August 1, 2016

In 2 weeks, on August 15th, you will be asked by IEEE to vote on an amendment to the IEEE Constitution. Why? IEEE has been a successful bottom‐up organization, run by members and volunteers like you and me. It has grown to a $450M annual enterprise. Technical societies are responsible for about 70‐80% of that revenue through our volunteer efforts on publications and conferences.

The amendment will be presented to you as a way to make IEEE more “nimble” or more “effective.” In reality, this amendment will change IEEE in a fundamental way. It can transform IEEE into a top‐down organization run by a smaller number of directors, with significant power to change the structure of IEEE Through this amendment, required geographic representation on the Board of Directors could be removed, making it possible that no Asian, European, Latin American or Canadian representatives will be on the Board. Required Technical Activities representation on the Board of Directors could also be removed, making it possible for a small group of bureaucrats and staff managers to take control of IEEE and reduce the voice of technical societies and volunteers. Societies are instrumental to IEEE’s past and It is no wonder that the governing bodies of many of IEEE’s largest societies (25 at this time) are against the amendment including: Computer, Communications, Power and Energy, Signal Processing, Circuits and Systems, Control, Electron Devices, Robotics and Automation, Solid‐State Circuits, and other societies. Four past IEEE Presidents have also been vocal in opposing the amendment, as have been If you want to learn more about why so many Societies are opposed to the constitutional amendment, If you want to learn more about the proposed changes to the IEEE constitution, please visit https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/election/2016_constitutional_amendment.html

 

From the IEEE website, opinion pro and con.

IEEE Board of Directors’ Statement in Support of Proposed Amendment to the IEEE Constitution The Board of Directors proposes revisions to the IEEE Constitution and recommends each IEEE member vote FOR the amendment. If adopted, these modifications improve the members’ voice in governing IEEE and allow future changes to the organizational structure to better respond to the demands of a complex and changing world. Specifically the changes:  Provide members with the possibility of an increased role selecting the Board of Directors, allowing directors to be elected by the full eligible voting membership of IEEE.  Add language encouraging a diverse Board of Directors.  Add the IEEE executive director, the most senior IEEE staff executive, as a non-voting member of the Board to participate from inception in setting the strategic direction of IEEE.  Separate the role of an IEEE delegate from an IEEE director, so that directors need not also be delegates.  Separate the requirement that corporate officers must also be directors. This will allow corporate officers as currently defined to serve in important leadership positions other than on the Board of Directors.  Establish a new role for IEEE delegates, who are members of the IEEE Assembly, to recommend and consult with the Board on revisions to IEEE Bylaws. Opposition Statement #1 – IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment. IEEE is a volunteer led organization. One of the proposed changes to the Constitution is to add the Executive Director (ED) to the Board of Directors. But, this is unnecessary because according to IEEE Bylaw I-306.2, “The IEEE Executive Director shall attend meetings of the Board of Directors and shall be an active participant in their deliberations.” And since the ED is a paid employee of IEEE, the proposed change would weaken the statement that IEEE is a volunteer led organization. As the Board sets the ED’s compensation, adding the ED to the Board, even if in a non-voting capacity, diminishes the value of the statement that IEEE is a

Opposition Statement #1 – IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment. IEEE is a volunteer led organization. One of the proposed changes to the Constitution is to add the Executive Director (ED) to the Board of Directors. But, this is unnecessary because according to IEEE Bylaw I-306.2, “The IEEE Executive Director shall attend meetings of the Board of Directors and shall be an active participant in their deliberations.” And since the ED is a paid employee of IEEE, the proposed change would weaken the statement that IEEE is a volunteer led organization. As the Board sets the ED’s compensation, adding the ED to the Board, even if in a non-voting capacity, diminishes the value of the statement that IEEE is a volunteerled organization. The change is unnecessary and unwise. Therefore, please vote NO. John Vig, IEEE Life Fellow Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The IEEE executive director (ED) is the chief operating officer of IEEE and currently an observer during IEEE Board meetings. The amendment, which adds the ED as a non-voting Board member, will strengthen his/her relationship with the Board, enabling participation in deliberations, presentation of matters for consideration, and involvement in the development of IEEE’s strategic direction. The ED is responsible for implementing Board decisions. The amendment recognizes the importance of the ED’s key leadership role and the vital volunteer-staff partnership needed to support IEEE’s mission. Current Bylaws prohibit the ED from participating in setting his/her compensation. Rebuttal Statement by John Vig – IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment because:  the proposed amendment enables a restructuring of IEEE - including the demotion of the all-volunteer Technical Activities Board (TAB), the demotion of the all-volunteer Member and Geographic Activities Board (MGAB), and it promotes the Executive Director (paid staff) to the previously all-volunteer Board of Directors.  technical activities are the main reason for IEEE's existence and MGAB represents the members. Therefore, the proposed amendment and possible restructuring are unwise. They would be detrimental to IEEE. Please vote NO on the amendment. Opposition Statement #2 - IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment. My concerns are more

IEEE Life Fellow Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The IEEE executive director (ED) is the chief operating officer of IEEE and currently an observer during IEEE Board meetings. The amendment, which adds the ED as a non-voting Board member, will strengthen his/her relationship with the Board, enabling participation in deliberations, presentation of matters for consideration, and involvement in the development of IEEE’s strategic direction. The ED is responsible for implementing Board decisions. The amendment recognizes the importance of the ED’s key leadership role and the vital volunteer-staff partnership needed to support IEEE’s mission. Current Bylaws prohibit the ED from participating in setting his/her compensation.

Rebuttal Statement by John Vig – IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment because:  the proposed amendment enables a restructuring of IEEE - including the demotion of the all-volunteer Technical Activities Board (TAB), the demotion of the all-volunteer Member and Geographic Activities Board (MGAB), and it promotes the Executive Director (paid staff) to the previously all-volunteer Board of Directors.  technical activities are the main reason for IEEE's existence and MGAB represents the members. Therefore, the proposed amendment and possible restructuring are unwise. They would be detrimental to IEEE. Please vote NO on the amendment. Opposition Statement #2 - IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment. My concerns are more

Opposition Statement #2 - IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment. My concerns are more on the principles of the proposed changes, rather than the details. 1. The Board will put forward the list of new proposed Directors. 2. Almost 300k members would be voting for each individual Director position. It is unrealistic to expect all members to spend time educating themselves on the merits of all candidates for each position. 3. Regions, Divisions and the Assembly will have no control of the Board. 4. All organizational changes are implemented through the Bylaws, and the Board has sole authority to approve them. In summary, the Board controls the Bylaws and the Budget, and could decide who gets on the list of candidates for the new Board. Any democratic organization relies on a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by its governing bodies. Some of the major IEEE checks and balances are being eliminated. To keep our organization member-driven, and not Board of Directors centric, please vote NO on the proposed Constitutional Amendment. Tony Ivanov, IEEE Senior Member Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – As the governing body of IEEE, the Board works for the benefit of the entire organization. The amendment does not change its current

Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – As the governing body of IEEE, the Board works for the benefit of the entire organization. The amendment does not change its current responsibilities, but allows for the separation of Delegates and Directors, which could result in the election of Directors by the entire voting membership instead of by smaller groups of members. Members of Regions and Divisions will continue to elect Delegates to the Assembly, the body representing the members, thus adding checks and balances. We believe IEEE voting members take their responsibilities seriously, and we are confident that they will continue to make informed decisions. Rebuttal Statement by Tony Ivanov – The IEEE Board of Directors has numerous powers. One thing that the Constitution prevents them from controlling is who sits on the Board of Directors. Elected leaders of Regions and Divisions automatically become Directors. This is the Constitution’s mechanism for Member control over the IEEE Board. Directors provide the perspective of Organizational Units that elected them. The proposed Amendment will eliminate this Constitutional constraint. If the Board gets the power to approve the list of Director Candidates, Members’ vote could be reduced to picking 28 names from a list provided by the Board. Please, vote NO to the proposed Amendment. Opposition Statement #3 - The following are reasons to oppose the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment change that will be put forward to IEEE member ballot with the stated objective to “create a nimble, flexible, forward-looking organization.” a) The problem statement that the proposed amendment is attempting to solve is not well-defined; b) The existing IEEE Constitution offers alternative, less complex ways of accomplishing the intended improvements; c) There are considerable unknowns associated with still-to-be-written bylaws under the proposed

Opposition Statement #3 - The following are reasons to oppose the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment change that will be put forward to IEEE member ballot with the stated objective to “create a nimble, flexible, forward-looking organization.” a) The problem statement that the proposed amendment is attempting to solve is not well-defined; b) The existing IEEE Constitution offers alternative, less complex ways of accomplishing the intended improvements; c) There are considerable unknowns associated with still-to-be-written bylaws under the proposed constitution; and d) The risk associated with a major constitutional change is not clearly outweighed by its possible benefits. Rabab Ward, IEEE Fellow Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The proposal increases flexibility and agility in a complex and rapidly-changing world while providing for a governance structure that increases the members’ voice in governing IEEE. The Board has taken considerable time and effort to review viable alternatives, including a review by external non-profit governance experts that concluded the risk of not changing was greater than under these changes. The Board identified these changes for the members’ consideration as the most appropriate mechanism to achieve its strategic goals. Draft Bylaws, necessary to comply with changes in the Amendment if it is approved, are available on the Amendment webpage. Opposition Statement #4 – Statement in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment, Article II, Section 2 Currently the IEEE Board can change the number of Directors anywhere from nine to fifty, the Regional diversity of the Board, technical diversity of the Board and the

Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The proposal increases flexibility and agility in a complex and rapidly-changing world while providing for a governance structure that increases the members’ voice in governing IEEE. The Board has taken considerable time and effort to review viable alternatives, including a review by external non-profit governance experts that concluded the risk of not changing was greater than under these changes. The Board identified these changes for the members’ consideration as the most appropriate mechanism to achieve its strategic goals. Draft Bylaws, necessary to comply with changes in the Amendment if it is approved, are available on the Amendment webpage. Opposition Statement #4 – Statement in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment, Article II, Section 2 Currently the IEEE Board can change the number of Directors anywhere from nine to fifty, the Regional diversity of the Board, technical diversity of the Board and the

Opposition Statement #4 – Statement in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment, Article II, Section 2 Currently the IEEE Board can change the number of Directors anywhere from nine to fifty, the Regional diversity of the Board, technical diversity of the Board and the make up of the Board with no notification to members and only twenty days notice to the Board itself. This amendment (Art. II Sec. 2) reinforces this minimal disclosure by only assuring visibility to the Assembly (all of whom are currently members of the Board.) The Board can literally change IEEE Governance structure every month, with no information distributed about changes to anyone prior to that month. A transparent Board would have at least a ninety day notice to all members (online at no cost.) Do not approve this extended authorization of secret governance. IEEE Members have a right to see any and all changes being proposed to the Bylaws and have an opportunity to engage Directors on any changes at this level. 21st century agility is not accomplished by increased concentration of power behind closed doors; rather it is enabled by transparent engagement of the best problem-solvers in the world: IEEE's engineering membership. James Isaak, IEEE Life Senior Member Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The IEEE Board adheres to the highest ethical standards and to best practices in communication and decision-making, and provides member access to its actions. The current twenty-day notice mandates a period of review by Directors before Bylaw changes may be adopted, which complies with the legal timeframe set by law. No change is proposed to this notice, nor to the member notification about changes to the IEEE Constitution. The amendment mandates the Board consult with the Assembly on Bylaw revisions. This new function for the Assembly, representing the members, will increase transparency. Rebuttal Statement by James Isaak – The advocates, who are permitted to disclose their titles, claim these changes "improve the members' voice". Rather than disclose proposed bylaw changes to the members, they only assure that right to the Assembly. The Board either has some secret

Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The IEEE Board adheres to the highest ethical standards and to best practices in communication and decision-making, and provides member access to its actions. The current twenty-day notice mandates a period of review by Directors before Bylaw changes may be adopted, which complies with the legal timeframe set by law. No change is proposed to this notice, nor to the member notification about changes to the IEEE Constitution. The amendment mandates the Board consult with the Assembly on Bylaw revisions. This new function for the Assembly, representing the members, will increase transparency.

Rebuttal Statement by James Isaak – The advocates, who are permitted to disclose their titles, claim these changes "improve the members' voice". Rather than disclose proposed bylaw changes to the members, they only assure that right to the Assembly. The Board either has some secret plan, or no plan at all for re-engineering IEEE. At the same time they deny opponents the right to disclose their titles, or disclose the opposition of groups of members (such as other IEEE governing bodies.) This is not the course of action that "improves the members voice", these are the actions of a secret society that censors opposition. Opposition Statement #5 - IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment. While appreciating the intention to “better define the roles of the IEEE Assembly and its delegates,” the proposed changes may threaten the very existence of IEEE as a volunteer-driven technical professional society. The main reasoning for this position is as follows: a) The current Constitution provides for guaranteed geographical diversity by requiring that volunteers from each geographic Region are represented by one Director on the BoD; b) The current Constitution provides for guaranteed technical diversity by requiring that volunteers from each technical Division are represented by one Director on the BoD; c) The proposed change replaces the above requirements with the statement that “The number of Directors … shall be specified in the Bylaws taking into consideration various diversity factors including, but not limited to, geographic and technical diversity.” d) The proposed changes transfer responsibilities to Bylaws but the intended Bylaws changes are not known at this time, so the full impact of the Amendments is unknown. Braham Ferreira, IEEE Fellow Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The current Constitution does not provide for a Board that is reflective of the demographic diversity of IEEE’s membership. That diversity is defined in the Bylaws and is not being reduced. Separating the role of the Delegate from that of Director will enable the Assembly to have a membership that is more reflective of IEEE’s rich and diverse global community. As a complex multi-national organization confronted with the challenges of remaining relevant in an ever-changing world, the Amendment will allow for members to elect a diverse Board that includes Directors with expertise in areas where the organization needs to focus.

Opposition Statement #5 - IEEE members, please vote NO on the proposed IEEE Constitutional Amendment. While appreciating the intention to “better define the roles of the IEEE Assembly and its delegates,” the proposed changes may threaten the very existence of IEEE as a volunteer-driven technical professional society. The main reasoning for this position is as follows: a) The current Constitution provides for guaranteed geographical diversity by requiring that volunteers from each geographic Region are represented by one Director on the BoD; b) The current Constitution provides for guaranteed technical diversity by requiring that volunteers from each technical Division are represented by one Director on the BoD; c) The proposed change replaces the above requirements with the statement that “The number of Directors … shall be specified in the Bylaws taking into consideration various diversity factors including, but not limited to, geographic and technical diversity.” d) The proposed changes transfer responsibilities to Bylaws but the intended Bylaws changes are not known at this time, so the full impact of the Amendments is unknown. Braham Ferreira, IEEE Fellow Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The current Constitution does not provide for a Board that is reflective of the demographic diversity of IEEE’s membership. That diversity is defined in the Bylaws and is not being reduced. Separating the role of the Delegate from that of Director will enable the Assembly to have a membership that is more reflective of IEEE’s rich and diverse global community. As a complex multi-national organization confronted with the challenges of remaining relevant in an ever-changing world, the Amendment will allow for members to elect a diverse Board that includes Directors with expertise in areas where the organization needs to focus.

Rebuttal Statement by the IEEE Board of Directors – The current Constitution does not provide for a Board that is reflective of the demographic diversity of IEEE’s membership. That diversity is defined in the Bylaws and is not being reduced. Separating the role of the Delegate from that of Director will enable the Assembly to have a membership that is more reflective of IEEE’s rich and diverse global community. As a complex multi-national organization confronted with the challenges of remaining relevant in an ever-changing world, the Amendment will allow for members to elect a diverse Board that includes Directors with expertise in areas where the organization needs to focus.

The world needs a good news source on Internet and telecom policy. I hope to create one. Catch a mistake? Email me please.  Dave Burstein

Latest

Professor Noam's "Many Internets" http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Until about 2010, everyone agreed the Net was a "network of networks," not a monolithic entity. There was a central authority, ICANN, keeping track of domain names, but that was a minor administrative function.
Columbia Professor Noam suggests we might be better off accepting that some nations or groups might want to organize their networks differently. It's easy to see demand for an Internet with much more effective filters against material some think harmful to children. (Any 10 year old can easily find porn today. Many do.)
Internet translation is getting better very quickly. You might want an "Internet" that translates everything into your language. Google Chrome translation isn't perfect but I was able to research most of this story on Russian language sites. With a few more years progress, I might welcome an alternate that brings me everything in English, including caching for better performance.
De facto, Internet news is already split, as hundreds of millions only get their news from Facebook. Google AMP pages, including for news, also favor selected parts of the net
Centralizing the DNS doesn't prevent censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. There are many Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists who want to block what they consider blasphemy and limit free speech. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-hold-rally-on-internet-at-citi-field.html . More from Noam http://bit.ly/ManyNets

Russia Orders Alternate Root Internet System http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS
It's actually practical and not necessarily a problem.The Security Council of the Russian Federation, headed by Vladimir Putin, has ordered the "government to develop an independent internet infrastructure for BRICS nations, which would continue to work in the event of global internet malfunctions ... This system would be used by countries of the BRICS bloc – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa." RT
Columbia University Professor Eli Noam and then ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé have both said such a system is perfectly practical as long as there is robust interconnection.
Actually, the battle over ICANN and domain names is essentially symbolic. Managing the DNS is a relatively insignificant task, more clerical than governing. ICANN Chair Steve Crocker pointed out they had very little to do with policy.
Some will claim this is about blocking free speech but that's rhetoric. Russia doesn't need to fiddle with the DNS for censorship, as the Chinese have demonstrated. The wonders of the Internet will continue so long as the resulting nets" are robustly connected. The ICANN and U.S. policy goal should be to help create that system for interconnection.
I expect contentions that “The Russians are taking over our Internet” and “They are splitting the Internet.” The Internet is a “Network of Networks.” It is not a monolith so what would “splitting” it mean or do?
After the WCIT, China realized that ICANN and the DNS are side issues not worth bothering about. They have been building alternate institutions including the World Internet Summit in Wuzhan and the BRICs conferences.  The Chinese have put their main work where decisions that matter are made. Wireless standards are set by 3GPP, where nothing can be approved without China's consent.
The American battle at ITU is proving to be a historic mistake.
Why does Russia want an independent Internet?
They fear that Western sanctions on Russia could cripple the Russian Net. Communications minister, Nikolay Nikiforov, worries about, "a scenario where our esteemed partners would suddenly decide to disconnect us from the internet." I think that's highly unlikely but Nikiforov points out, “Recently, Russia is being addressed in a language of unilateral sanctions: first, our credit cards are being cut off; then the European Parliament says that they’ll disconnect us from SWIFT."
It makes sense for the Russians to be prepared for such a contingency as the Cold War has been warming up on both sides. "Britain's top military chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach just made headlines warning Russian subs "could CRIPPLE Britain by cutting undefended undersea internet cables." Much more http://bit.ly/RussiaDNS

ICANN Continues Excluding Russia & China From the Board http://bit.ly/CEOPromises
No wonder Russia wants an alternate root. Three years ago, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé promised "a seat at the table" to Chinese Premier Li. ICANN welched and this year added two more Americans.
Almost all the ICANN board is from the U.S. and close allies; only about 4 of the 18 board members are from countries on the other side of the North/South divide in Internet policy.  Claiming ICANN represents the Global Internet is inappropriate. China is 1/3rd of the Internet but has no representation on the board.
I know many of the board members. They are all basically honorable but generally share a strong opinion on North-South issues.
Larry Strickling of the U.S. government knew just what he was doing with the IANA transition. He handed over to a board with similar positions as the U.S. government.
"The system is unsustainable while it excludes half the world," I have been saying since 2012. More, including the transcript of Fadi's statements,http://bit.ly/CEOPromises

Sorry, Ajit Pai: Smaller Telcos Did Not Reduce Investment After NN Ruling http://bit.ly/SorryPai
Pai justifies his NN choice with the claim, "The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers." #wrong (Actually, NN has minimal effects on investment, up or down, I’m convinced. Competition, new technology, customer demand and similar are far more important.)
The two largest suppliers to “smaller ISPs” saw sales go up. Adtran's sales the most recent nine months were $540M, up from $473M the year before. 2016 was $636M, 2015 $600M. Calix the last nine months sold $372M, up from $327M. The full year 2016 was $459M, up from $407M in 2015. Clearfield, a supplier of fiber optic gear, was up 8% in sales in the smaller ISPs.
There is nothing in the data from others that suggests an alternate trend. Anyone could have found this data in a few minutes from the company quarterly reports.
The results in larger companies are ambiguous. I can "prove" capex went up or went down by selecting the right data. The four largest companies' capex - two/thirds of the total - went up from $52.7B in 2015 to $55.7B in 2016. The result remains positive after making sensible adjustments for mergers and acquisitions. That's as close to "proving" that NN led to increased spending as the facts chosen to prove the opposite.
Actually, whether capex went up or down in 2016 tells us almost nothing about the choice on neutrality. Everyone knows a single datapoint could be random or due to other causes. Much more, including the source of the errors http://bit.ly/SorryPai

Elders Bearing Witness: Vint, Timbl, & Many More http://bit.ly/VintTim
Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak and more than a dozen true Internet pioneers wrote Congress to protect Neutrality. The best Congress money can buy didn't listen but I wanted to reproduce their letter.
I hope they are wrong believing "is an imminent threat to the Internet we worked so hard to create." My take is the impact will be moderate in the short run.
From the letter:
We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood. ... The FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.
Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order ... More, including the full list, http://bit.ly/VintTim