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

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 16 nov. 07 à 14:06, Veni Markovski a écrit :

> 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.

As you're well aware, there are other parts of the world. And even  
the western world is not restricted to what you seem to think it is.  
Since we are in our folk wisdom discovering session, next time you  
can use the French: "On ne change pas une équipe qui gagne" (never  
change a winning team) or even the Arabic, at least the Tunisian  
saying, probably better fitting our current case: (warning: bad  
phonetics) "ched mchumek la yjik ma achwem" -- very defeatist, actually.

>> 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.

What we are discussing has nothing to do with public-private  
partnership. You can do with or without them, that's not the point.

>> 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?

When we would need another folk wisdom session, just let me know, as  
there are other French sayings for this kind of answer.

>>> 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"

What do you mean by "coordinated"? Having the same laws everywhere?  
Having one world LEA? If you don't mean this, then I don't see what a  
decentralized root architecture would change anything w.r.t. to  
current situation, with current laws and (cooperating, BTW) law  
enforcement systems. Again, could you please make your question more  
precise, showing some specific examples?

>>> 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?

For sure, they will. With current centralized root system or with a  
different one. The solution (if any) to this problem has nothing to  
do with this.

>>> 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

Speaking of good faith, that's not true. Or you may have missed some  
mails.

> 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.)

"let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many  
governments are not happy with current situation? And there are  
plenty of other issues, that are documented everywhere, and that you  
perfectly know.

>>>  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.

Who's saying this is only for the sake of the discussion, apart from  
those who don't want this discussion opened?

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