Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system

[Veni Markovski]

Meryem,
While I am not a technical expert, and would not go into discussion on
that level, I'd strongly argue from a policy maker's perspective
against multiple roots, multiple DNS, where every country or may be
even more - every group, or every individual (as Karl would probably
add) have their own root, domains, IP address issuing, etc. Why?

There are several concerns:

1. The current model is working. The Russian saying is "if it is
working, don't touch it". It is not an accident that this is a Russian
saying. Think about it.
2. While some people, mainly driven from theoretical experience, say
that "there is a better model" and advice to build it on the ground of
the experience built during the ICANN era, I have not seen a software
that will show us how the "new" model will work. Something like a
cover version of a softwae game (sorry, forgot its name) where one
starts asd a mayor and has to build a whole city. And every move makes
different things happening. Do we really want to move into a new
model, without knowing what is going to happen?
3. Law and law-enforcement problems
4. Spam, phishing, pharming and everything else that the IGF doesn't
really want to address seriously (and there are many arguments why it
doesn't)

I am not defending ICANN for the sake of defending it. I speak based
on my own experience in creating an internet-friendly environment in a
whole country. Those of you who have been at the Best Practices Forum
on Wednesday have heard what a vital model it is, and how it provides
both economic growth and protects the human rights. I wish we could
see more countries like Bulgaria vis-à-vis the governance of the
Internet.

While I don't have anything against discussing theoretical models, the
attempts to push forward one or another model built on theories I find
extremly dangerous. When we were building our IG model in Bulgaria, we
had everyone on the rouns table. Noone was excluded, and each opinion
was taken into account. The most difficult part - making sure the
government in 1999 understood what are the benefits. Since then we
have now third government in a row, which understands better the way
the Internet works. ISOC-Bulgaria did a lot to educate our government.
Sometimes I wish we have done more of this education on an
international level.

So, to wrap up the discussion - before we push things for a change,
let us see where is this change leading us, and - more importantly -
what are the motives behind the proposed changes. Only then we'll be
able to reach to the answer of the question "who is to benefit of
that?".

That is how we made our model working in Bulgaria, and I don't think
we should eliminate this practical experience just because someone may
not like the fact that it means writing off their theories.

Best,
Veni
Via blackberry


On 11/16/07, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Le 16 nov. 07 à 00:29, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
>
> > Meryem Marzouki [15/11/07 19:14 +0100]:
> >>> Stick to the existing root server model? Definitely, yes.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily.
> >
> > Sincerely, I fail to see how or where altering the current root server
> > structure is going to help with improving and/or modifying gTLD and
> > ccTLD
> > governance processes, creation of additional TLDs etc.
>
> The point is that I don't see any other workable way to de(-)
> construct the "one root, one ICANN (, one government)" rethoric --
> and actual situation.
> Frankly, I fail to see how a "better", while still unique, ICANN can
> be achieved.
> The key is in decentralization: many roots, many "ICANNs", many
> governements and non-governement entities, each root being sovereign
> in defining its own policies (TLD creation, rules related to content,
> property, dispute resolution, etc.: one can list here all the
> problems seen with ICANN till now and for the decades to come), while
> ensuring at global governance level consistency and neutrality in
> resolving and routing.
>
> In current situation, the whole system is working good from a
> technical point of view. The change may not improve it, but it wont
> make it worse.
> But from the policy side, it can certainly not be worse from a
> general interest point of view.
> So, the only obstacles to try decentralization - or, as a start, to
> discuss it - are the strong lobbies of those defending their
> privileges on the one hand and inertia on the other hand. None is
> negligible. Inertia is really hard to fight. But the idea of
> decentralizing different roots, sovereign in defining their internal
> policies, may find many strong allies.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance