[governance] Demystifying the debate

Tue Oct 11 09:05:07 EDT 2005

Hi Laina,

I believe Paul's reply suggested a reasonable next step, which is that
each of the rootops could develop and post their own brief policy
statement.  These could then be compiled and shared with concerned
parties, ideally before Tunis.

To get this started, I might suggest that Stephane, Norbert, and Avri
and others with concerns take a crack at drafting text that would
reassure them at least as far as the rootops going nuclear. Of course
rootops would be free to adopt, adapt, or ignore your text - have fun! :
)

Lee

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

>>> "Laina Raveendran Greene" <laina at getit.org> 10/10/05 9:12 PM >>>

Thanks Lee. I totally agree. 

The plenary list (although I know this list is overwhelming for many)
for
example, could be used to disseminate info (especially a draft
statement
from the roottops are you suggested= from Paul and his team). Besides
this
list then, we need to find a way to get it to CS, Private sector and
governments and ensure it is read and understood. 

Those of us who have friendly governments who do listen to us, and
whose
governments are very involved in the government debates, we should aim
to
give them this material to them so they may use this to help possibly
demystify and break some deadlocks and ensure meaningful discussions.
Worth
a try. I also recall speaking with the rapporteur of the PrepCom (from
Greece) who was very intrigued about some of some facts I shared with
him
about these issues, and he was very keen to help demystify any rumours
amongst the gov to focus debates on something more meanigful. I would
try
reaching out to him too.

Personally, I think this should have been done a long time ago whilst
the IG
debates were going on or way before it even started. But it appears
that CS
was partly responsible for perpetuating some of this "emotive"
perspectives
as well, as I noted in the IG caucus update to CS during the
orientation
session and things said on this list.

Regards,
Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:44 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; paul at vix.com 
Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration

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

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