<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Why do you persist in confusing technical issues versus purely political ones?</div><div><br></div><div>The single root (system of root servers under a wide range of control) setup is a result of architecture, not politics. Alternate roots are technically not feasible, and where they do exist, they either require their small number of believers to set up a complete new set of resolvers without which the particular set of alternate roots they require won't resolve. </div><div><br></div><div>This scenario only works by design in say a corporate environment where internal servers are available in their private DNS servers and not resolvable over the Internet. Were it is made to seamlessly work in the internet, as in national governments providing a different, censored view of DNS for their citizens, runs the risk of breaking DNS worldwide, as several ISPs in South America and elsewhere started getting redirected to Chinese controlled websites when they tried to access, say, google or the bbc.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9174278/After_DNS_problem_Chinese_root_server_is_shut_down">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9174278/After_DNS_problem_Chinese_root_server_is_shut_down</a></div><div><br></div><div>I see they want to try and institutionalize their own system of alternate roots though .. as this interesting pre wcit technical proposal shows. And you dont actually need an ietf mandate to deploy running code, so the political aspects of this are actually much more interesting, taking alt root beyond the purview of a few cranks and making it an instrument of state policy to split the internet. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/18/china_firewall_dns_proposal/">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/18/china_firewall_dns_proposal/</a></div><div><br></div><div>So when it comes to trying to bring politics into technology, civil society actors using canting terminology in petty arguments on a mailing list are actually the least of our worries. It is when you run into people who are capable and willing to operationalize those politics that the real danger begins.</div><div><br>--srs (iPad)</div><div><br>On 20-Jan-2013, at 16:29, Riaz K Tayob <<a href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com">riaz.tayob@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
This is the interpretation we make (and we are entitled to make it)
when for instance:<br>
<br>
1. Some argue for ICANN etc to be regulated by US laws (state or
otherwise) - and that this is sufficient.<br>
<br>
2. Others argue that legitimacy of the current structure of
governance is not an issue, and that work ought rather to be done
within the system. And that it is a none issue. <br>
<br>
I recall that I and others were asked why the Assange issue was
relevant to Internet Governance. To respond to that, I said, well if
US Exceptionalism (as explained above, but I will try to dig out
some of the more plum quotes on this issue when/if I have time) as
defined by me (I recall I even had to explain that I reserve the
right 'to determine the terms of the terms' of my engagement - and
legitimacy is an issue) is allowed on this list then so is
interrogation of it.<br>
<br>
And if you don't like the terms/labels, then perhaps we can look at
the discourse of how the 'single rooters' characterised the
"multi-rooters" (or break the internet brigade) which should give us
an inkling of the appropriate balance of how to determine the 'terms
of the terms' of the engagement.<br>
<br>
And what term would you prefer? ICANN supporters, US fans, Status
Quoists, or do you find these too constricting and that every issue
should simply be qualitatively assessed?<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/01/20 11:30 AM, Adam Peake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAFabd1K9N4TrRdiUEnU4Zhc=fPs89CPBT9cOiaW7sNEj2jNTAA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><font face="sans-serif">I don't recall support the
notion of US Exceptionalism from anyone on this list. </font></blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>____________________________________________________________</span><br><span>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:</span><br><span> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a></span><br><span>To be removed from the list, visit:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>For all other list information and functions, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a></span><br><span>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>