[governance] "pre-eminent role"

[Danny Younger]

I disagree with the stated principle:  "No single
Government or other stakeholder should have a
pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet
governance".

This principle disregards the fundamental reality of
the nature of DNS Stewardship.  Any steward of any
portion of the namespace is necessarily "pre-eminent".

The above principle accomplishes nothing more than
bringing unsavory politics further into the DNS
sphere.

The question that we should really be asking is this: 
"has the current steward of the root been so derelict
in its duties that a redelegation of stewardship is
required?"

If the answer is yes, then it would be appropriate to
list those grievances that demonstrate that said
entity has not appropriately served as trustee, and
has in fact defaulted on its duty to the community.

Has the steward failed to be equitable to all groups
that request domain names?  Has the steward failed to
do a satisfactory job of ensuring the operation of the
DNS?

As for me, while I can find some reasons for
dissatisfaction with the current administration of the
root, I cannot find a sufficient number of convincing
reasons to delegate the stewardship of the root to an
entity other than its current steward.




	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance