<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear Meryem<br>
<br>
Rolling back the thread to answer few question and to try clarify
some issue<br>
about the <b>NET4D</b> proposal <br>
<br>
<div align="center">
<div align="center"> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.net4D.org"><img
src="cid:part1.06050001.05000307@mdpi.net" border="0" width="150"></a>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div align="center"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.net4d.org/">http://www.net4d.org/</a><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
How it became that the thread <i>DNSsec and allternative DNS system<br>
</i>became <i>Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality</i> -<br>
after your post ?<br>
<i>Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance]
DNSsec and allternative DNS system</i><br>
<br>
Why renaming the thread ? <br>
<br>
The linkage with DNSsec is quite important since it increases the
importance and power<br>
of the overseer of a root DNS system.<br>
why remove it ?<br>
<br>
Net Neutrality is an interesting concept that could be applied to the <br>
network of DNS servers that indeed should be "neutral" <br>
in regards to the class of the network<br>
of which are carrying the resolving system.<br>
It was I could sense from your post, but <br>
is it what you had in mind ?<br>
<br>
Thanks for the clarification.<br>
<br>
Yet I would like to underline, against all expected FUD,<br>
that the NET4D is not all yet another set of "boutique" TLDs. that<br>
have flourished illegally within the IN class, bringing confusion and
fragmentation.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Francis<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1DD29D7C-0928-4591-89E9-EE164E1D8053@ras.eu.org"
type="cite">Karl,
<br>
<br>
I'm in full agreement with your views on alternate (I do prefer the
concept of existing alternatives, rather than competition, generally
speaking and specially in this context) root systems, except on one
point, dealing with how to ensure consistency:
<br>
<br>
Le 15 nov. 07 à 01:24, Karl Auerbach a écrit :
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[...]
<br>
But the looser definition of "consistency" that I advocate, new TLDs
could arise - I call them "boutique" TLDs - that strive for sunlight
and growth. They would, at first be found only in a few root systems -
perhaps because they offer something interesting, perhaps they paid
their way in, whatever - that's the normal task of "building a brand"
that goes with any new product that seeks space on store shelves.
<br>
<br>
Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain tiny
boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root system
that offers them, and some will grow to become new members of the
"every root must have" club.
<br>
<br>
This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any central
ICANN-like authority.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is no such "natural" growth, taking into account the fact that
not all TLDs, and specially "boutique" TLDs can afford "building a
brand", which is very costly, or even are intererested in building such
brand.
<br>
There are alternatives to a "laissez-faire", marked-oriented approach.
Since this list is - sometimes - discussing global governance issues,
why not elaborating and discussing a way to guarantee that any -
"boutique" or not - TLD should be found in any root system, *provided*
that they obey some simple rules to ensure overall consistency (like,
e.g., a TLD string should be unique: a unique .com, a unique .org,
etc., but also a unique .karl if anyone finds any interest in such a
TLD. And any other needed rule to ensure that everything works fine,
technically -- and to ensure only this objective). It's typically a<b>
network neutrality issue.</b>
<br>
Who would check that these rules are obeyed? Well, isn't this exactly
the role of a global internet governance institution? Yes, I know, this
requires a lot of elaboration and discussion, not that simple, but a
huge step forward would be accomplished if only we could agree on the
principle that such a discussion should be started.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Now some will say that "what if I get email
from <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:somebody@someplace.boutique-tld">somebody@someplace.boutique-tld</a>, how am I to answer it?"
<br>
<br>
The answer is that "you don't".
<br>
</blockquote>
[...]
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
That's life
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not, that's not life. That's free market instead of global public
policy in view of the general interest.
<br>
And that's certainly not network neutrality.
<br>
<br>
Meryem
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Meryem Marzouki - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.iris.sgdg.org">http://www.iris.sgdg.org</a>
<br>
IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
<br>
40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris
<br>
Tel. +33(0)144749239
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-
</pre>
</body>
</html>