[governance] Vixie supports another root administration

[Lee McKnight]

Paul,

More info on the site is of course good.

And I know some have advocated a contract explicitly stating what the
rootops will and will not do, but I think doing that could be a big
mistake.  I prefer your nonbinding promise. 

Better for rootops to develop a 'policy statement' or something soft
like that, which preserves their independence and flexibility, and just
post to the website Paul as you are offering.

I'm sure many in CS would be happy to help develop text for that brief
statement, but maybe Paul you should first discuss amongst your rootops
peers. Or would you rather have some draft text in hand for that
conversation?

And finally with regards to Stephane's rhetorical challenge, the more
imaginable doomsday scenarios all involve - lots of other governments
and more specificlly non-tech bureacrats. So it's not CS apologists for
Bush, it's keeping a room full of Bush wannabe's from trying to review
files they don't have a clue about, but recognize it's somehow
important.  

Anyway, Paul, if you and colleagues can write something  factual that
may help demystify, thanks. 

Though I doubt it can stop the debate, maybe we will all be better
informed : )

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> 10/10/05 3:36 PM >>>
# Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and
somehow
# "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just scaremongering IMO.

and IMO also.

# Yes, mainly but many governments (and some CS folk) want to also have
the
# rootops sign some kind of agreement (a contract) with a central
entity, to
# ensure continued good service.  This is "rootserver management",
another
# thorny issue unlikely to be resolved by WSIS.

my employer (Internet Systems Consortium, Inc; operator of F-Root) is
on
record as being willing to promise to just about anybody to keep doing
what
we've always done, which is serve IANA's data faithfully from
192.5.5.241
and 2001:500::1035.  but a non-binding promise without any recourse
doesn't
seem to be of much interest, and ISC's responsibilities in this regard
are
to the public rather than to any particular government or NGO.

# > Just thought it would be good to get some clarifications.
# 
# You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around
the root
# server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run by the root
server
# operators could be more informative.

i've got a login on that system and could add text to that web site, i
guess,
as long as the other rootops didn't disagree with the proposed text. 
what
do you have in mind?
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance