[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Robert Guerra]

Vittorio:

In regards to alternate DNS systems - i am well aware that it's not  
only possible, but a reality as several alternate DNS systems already  
exist. I don't think they  are used much - but they are around.

I have two main concerns:

1.  Freedom of expression  - Is censorship easier or harder?

DNS poisoning is well documented in certain parts of the world. Would  
any new/alternate system make it any easier for sites to be  
inaccessible, ie. blocked in some way?

If we want to ensure that Freedom is in fact preserved - then any  
revisions to the DNS system should strive to make it harder, not  
easier for censorship to take place.

2. Privacy &  Anonymity .

In addition to censorship issue, any new proposals should be designed  
in such a way that privacy and anonymity is maximized.  The current  
system is increasingly under attack - not from terrorists, but by  
governments who are increasing calling for surveillance and data  
retention laws to be passed.

it would be good for CS to propose options  that are enhance privacy  
and anonymity.


There's also the issue of the political reality - The language being  
used by some people seem to mention for splits in a very  provocative  
and threatening manner. A more cautious, technical approach would be  
more appropriate - at least that's my personal opinion.


again , thanks for your comments. much appreciated.

regards

Robert




Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 9-Aug-05, at 1:10 AM, 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.
>
> There are a number of scenarios in which you could have a  
> "collaborative split" of the root, that is, groups of countries /  
> stakeholders creating their own roots and agreeing to keep them  
> synchronized as long as no major policy / military controversy  
> arises. I think this could in the end be beneficial, not damaging,  
> to the Internet; certainly better than forcing everyone (and it  
> really means forcing, by police) to use one single root system with  
> whose management they don't agree.
>
> Of course, it would be different if you had a "competitive split",  
> that is, the Internet breaking in two parts whose managers  
> explicitly try to create hurdles for users to access one from the  
> other. Still, I prefer to have the freedom to create a separate  
> DNS, than being forced to comply with policies that I don't like or  
> that I did not have an option to influence.
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] 
> <-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>
>

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