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

[Ian Peter]

Well, its now proven true, after being tested in many forums at Rio and also
on this list, and I can now announce that the Peter Principle of Internet
Governance Discussions has been fully tested and proven.

The Peter Principle of Internet Governance Discussions states....

As any discussion around Internet governance grows longer, the probability
of it drifting into a discussion about ICANN approaches one.

With thanks to Godwin's law for the formulation!


Ian Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com] 
Sent: 17 November 2007 02:12
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
Subject: Re: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re:
[governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system

At 15:48 11/16/2007  +0100, you wrote:
>"let's save user's interests"?! Funny.. Second, why do you think many

I can advise you reading Joi's thoughts on that: 
http://joi.ito.com/archives/2007/11/12/three_years_with_icann.html
"The other problem is that most of the people who are affected by the 
decisions, the average users, don't know or care about ICANN. Trying 
to figure out an better way to get their input has always been an 
issue, but is one that is not unique for ICANN. All of politics and 
collective action share the difficulty in getting the public to care 
about issues that affect them." And there are many like this. You 
can't force your ideas (neither can I do with mine) on the 1 billion 
Internet users, and make them care about their representation at the 
global level. People in my country don't really care about ICANN; 
they stopped caring even about the ccTLD administrator after the 
implementation of prices 6 times higher than the ones existing in 
2000. So, why do you think the users' interests should be focused on 
domains and IP addresses? I agree - let's have a discussion, but let 
us not try to define what the discussion should be about, but discuss 
everything, equal time for everything.

>governments are not happy with current situation? And there are

Could you define what you mean by happiness of a government?

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

I don't think there are people here who don't want a discussion open. 
But I also think there are people who would like to keep the 
discussion going on for quite a while, without any results. And I can 
talk about this freely, as I was part of the small governmental 
working group, which reached to the solution just before the first 
WSIS in Geneva. I don't recall anyone else from our IG list there. 
And I know what I saw, what I heard, and what happened afterwards. 
So, when you say there are people who don't have a discussion opened, 
I am not sure who you have in mind. I know who are the ones who 
wanted the discussion.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007
20:57
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1133 - Release Date: 15/11/2007
20:57
 

____________________________________________________________
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