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

[Veni Markovski]

At 12:47 11/16/2007  +0100, you wrote:
>>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.

No, actually it doesn't. The western world has a different one - "if 
it ain't broken, don't fix it". A little differene, but an important one.

>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.

Well, Meryem, but then... everything goes under this line, right? 
People would always agree on their disagreement. What I mean, though, 
and I tried to make it clear, is that there are places, where the 
public-private partnership is working. And if there are such places, 
perhaps one could try to study them.

>Consequently, there is no reason to stop a discussion on how it
>should be changed.

Discussions are alwyas good, especially if people have questions, and 
there is someone to answer them. If the discussion is taking place 
for the sake of the discussion, then I have some objections to that.

>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

Well, you have several points here:
a) you say you don't need software simulations, I say you need one.
b) you want the thinking to be "in good faith", and it will be quite 
difficult to define that "good" and that "faith". I am sure there are 
people who do in "good faith" terrible things.
c) there's a simple example from the game - do you think military 
bases are good for the city, or bad?

>I would recommend here to consider the Russian's genius in chess
>rather than in sayings.

Well, you may have different recommendations. Some would say they 
prefer Bobby Fisher to Gary Kasparov. I'd say - take a look at his 
book "How life imitates chess" and see which of his thousands of 
games he consideres the best.


>>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?

What I think is in the following lines: do you think these problems 
will be easier to solve in a DNS world which is not coordinated? Or 
which is, relying on "good faith"

>>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?

Do you seriously think such problems will not escalate in times, 
considering they already exist?

>>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?

Like screwing something that is working. I hear you "the current 
model doesn't work", but

a) I don't see you offering an alternative
b) explaining what is that you think doesn't work (and let's save the 
users' interests - the users are interested that they have Internet 
connection. I bet 99% of them don't know that there's ISOC, ICANN, 
IETF, IAB, EDRI, etc.)

>>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.

You say you know the answer. I don't know it. I may have some doubts 
that there are people who are interested to have this constant 
discussion for the sake of the discussion, but since I have no 
proofs, I can't put it in writing. It's only driven by experience and 
talks to people.

veni 

____________________________________________________________
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