[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Carlos Afonso]

It is fascinating how the technical experts react to any "menace" to a 
current paradigm. The fact is that the mentioned RFC and several related 
others are precisely produced *under* the current paradigm. Like, if the 
Earth is flat and this is the hypothesis, the ensuing theorems will 
never deal with the logic of a round one. When is a Galileo going to 
show up and say "look, actually it is possible, and it will happen"?

Just re-reading Thomas Kuhn :)

--c.a.

Geoff Huston wrote:

>At 03:10 PM 9/08/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>  
>
>>Robert Guerra ha scritto:
>>    
>>
>>>I've just posted a blog entry with my comments related to the WGIG
>>>report.
>>>
>>>You can find the comments here:
>>>
>>>http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/wgig-rg-comments.html
>>>      
>>>
>>May I comment on one of your comments? You say:
>>
>>"In regards to stability - The threat of the creation of a alternate top
>>level DNS is increasingly being mentioned. This would create a
>>Split/fracture of the DNS. This would lead to instability. This is an
>>issue of critical concern - Proactive measures, policies and actions are
>>needed to prevent this."
>>
>>I strongly disagree with this. A single root system is highly desirable,
>>but, at the same time, having the option to have more than one is a
>>basic "check and balance" on the fact that the current one is well
>>managed. This is a very general principle over the Internet, and it is
>>at the heart of its inherent support for freedom: if you don't like how
>>something is managed - be it a service, a website, an application, a
>>server... - you are free to spend some effort to create your own
>>alternative, and if you meet the expectations of the public better, your
>>service will become the most used one.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I have to strongly disagree with this - If you want a global bit bucket 
>into which you cast random bits that are unreadable and useless for anyone 
>else then by all means break apart the consistency of mapping between 
>symbols and their semantic intent.  The principle you espouse here is NOT 
>at the heart of the Internet, or any other coherent communications system.
>
>If, on the other hand, you actually want to use the network, then we all 
>need to maintain consistent use of a single namespace and the associated 
>semantic intent of names that populate this space.  You really should read 
>through RFC 2826 carefully and then think about _why_ the IAB thought it 
>appropriate to generate this note. The entire concept of an orderly 
>transition into digital incoherence that you describe here is at best 
>amusing, but of no merit otherwise.
>
>regards,
>
>   Geoff Huston
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>  
>

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance