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

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 16 nov. 07 à 11:49, Veni Markovski a écrit :

> 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.

My dear Veni, I'm afraid this kind of saying exists almost  
everywhere. It simply illustrates conservatism, inertia, lazziness,  
fear of any new idea, defense of privilege, etc. No, the current  
model is not working. It's technically working, but it's not  
politically working. From a general interest public policy view, it's  
an entire failure. And, while I'm fair in acknowledging that it is  
politically working in the views of some, I'd appreciate same  
fairness in ackowledging that for many others it doesn't work.  
Consequently, there is no reason to stop a discussion on how it  
should be changed.

> 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?

We don't need software simulations: thinking and exchanging  
arguments, including devil's advocate arguments - provided that it's  
in good faith - would be enough to put to the proof any proposal. And  
I would recommend here to consider the Russian's genius in chess  
rather than in sayings.

> 3. Law and law-enforcement problems

What does that mean exactly? It needs precision. Which law, where to  
enforce it, for which crime or offence? And do you really think these  
problems are currently solved?

> 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)

Do you seriously mean that such problems would be created, that they  
don't already exist?

> I am not defending ICANN for the sake of defending it.

Certainly not..

> 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.

Like what?

> So, to wrap up the discussion - before we push things for a change,
> let us see where is this change leading us,

yes, let's do this.

> and - more importantly -
> what are the motives behind the proposed changes.

Have been largely explained.

> Only then we'll be
> able to reach to the answer of the question "who is to benefit of
> that?".

What is granted, is that we already know the answer to this question  
in the current situation. That's a good start.

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