Please fully answer the 2 separate questions. There is a small attached article for the second question. Please use correct english when answering the questions. 

1.What elements of culture will be important for you to understand to improve the quality of your cross-cultural interactions? What actions should you take to prepare for your assignment and how can you best deal with culture shock?

2.Net Neutrality is one of the most controversial issues concerning the Internet in the news right now. 
Read the 2 posted articles on Net Neutrality and conduct your own research on it. What are your thoughts on this issue?

Article on Net Neutrality taken from the New York Times on Dec 22, 2010

The concept of “net neutrality" holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally. It has been the center of a debate over whether those companies can give preferential treatment to content providers who pay for faster transmission, or to their own content, in effect creating a two-tier Web, and about whether they can block or impede content representing controversial points of view.
Currently, Internet users get access to any Web site on an equal basis. Foreign and domestic sites, big corporate home pages and low-traffic blogs all show up on a user’s screen in the same way when their addresses are typed into a browser. The Federal Communications Commission had come out in favor of keeping things that way, but its ability to do so was put in doubt by a federal appeals decision in April 2010 that restricted its authority over broadband service.
On Dec. 21, 2010, the F.C.C. approved a compromise that would broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net. The vote was 3 to 2, with the Democratic commissioners supporting it and the Republican commissioners against.
The rules, which address some of the principles of so-called network neutrality, will be tested in the courts in the months ahead, and Republicans said that they would challenge the rules in Congress as well.
The new rules are, at best, net semi-neutrality. They ban any outright blocking and any “unreasonable discrimination” of Web sites or applications by fixed-line broadband providers, but they afford more wiggle room to wireless providers like AT&T and Verizon. They require all providers to disclose what steps they take to manage their networks. In a philosophical break with open Internet advocates, the rules do not explicitly forbid “paid prioritization,” which would allow a company to pay for faster transmission of data.
The F.C.C.'s new approach won widespread acceptance among some Internet providers, developers and venture capital firms. But a wide swath of public interest groups have lambasted the proposal as “fake net neutrality” and said it was rife with loopholes.
The F.C.C. compromise followed a proposal made in August by Google and Verizon, which called on regulators to enforce net neutrality on wired connections but not on the wireless Internet. They also excluded something they called "additional, differentiated online services."

One of the main factors in the current debate is the F.C.C.'s defeat in federal court. The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the agency lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networkswas a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to impose the so-called “net neutraility” obligations.
The agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, argued that such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some online content and services over others.
Since the court decision, the F.C.C. has been trying to find a way to regulate broadband delivery. On Dec. 1, 2010, Mr. Genachowski outlined a framework that forbids both wired and wireless Internet service providers from blocking lawful content, but would allow broadband providers to charge consumers different rates for different levels of service. His proposal would also allow broadband providers to manage their networks to limit congestion or harmful traffic, and forms the basis for a proposed order the F.C.C. will vote on at its meeting in the closing days of 2010.
The issue took on a new urgency with the Verizon-Google proposal, which was favored by some telecommunications companies like AT&T but opposed by Facebook and many other Internet content companies. Much of the debate rests on the idea of paid "fast lanes." Content companies, the theory goes, would have to pay for favored access to a carrier's customers, so some Web sites or video services could load faster than others.
That would be a big change from the level playing field that content companies now enjoy. Barry Diller, who oversees Expedia, Ticketmaster, and other sites, described the idea as "the equivalent of having the toaster pay for the ability to plug itself into the electrical grid."
These fast lanes are fairly easy to understand when it comes to wireless Internet access. But what confused many was the suggestion by Google and Verizon that future online services that are not part of the public Internet should also be exempt from equal-access rules. These services would be "distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services," the two companies said in a joint blog post. "It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services or new entertainment and gaming options."
Some experts were puzzled as to what these services might be and why such an exception might be necessary.
Concerns about open networks are not limited to access to Web sites, and they are not hypothetical. In 2007, Verizon Wireless rejected Naral Pro-Choice America’s request to send text messages over its network, a decision Verizon reversed after an outpouring of criticism. Recently, Apple was criticized for rejecting an iPhone application, Google Voice, an Internet-based service that would permit users to make low-cost calls without using AT&T, which has an exclusive arrangement for the iPhone in this country. (Apple said it is still considering the application.) The F.C.C. is investigating.
In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission had adopted four broad principles relating to the idea of network neutrality as part of a move to deregulate the Internet services provided by telephone companies. Those principles declared that consumers had the right to use the content, applications, services and devices of their choice using the Internet. They also promoted competition between Internet providers.
The F.C.C. under the Obama administration is moving to add a fifth principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications. Consumer advocates are concerned that Internet providers might ban or degrade services that compete with their own offerings, like television shows delivered over the Web.
The F.C.C. had formally voted in 2008 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, saying that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using popular file-sharing software. The decision, which imposed no fine, required Comcast to end such blocking.
The court case, which the federal appeals court ruled on in April 2010, centered on Comcast’s challenge of the 2008 F.C.C. order