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

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Suresh,

to support your argument:

1. gee, it's refreshing to see someone freshly puncturing the hot-air 
balloon of the "ICANN as monopoly" argument, which is flawed from the 
roots up. Carry on; it also lays waste the "competing ICANNs" magic-wand 
waving.

2. further: the "splitting ICANN" story has been belied repeatedly. The 
SO's, separated, become cartels and can't stand inspection by competition 
authorities anywhere. The architecture of ICANN makes sure that there is 
someone from outside each "market" (g-names, ccTLD managers, IP addresses) 
that avoids price-fixing and other anticompetitive practices. Is this very 
hard to understand?

Now, is it possible to move away from discussing ICANN to some other 
governance issues? What we witnessed in the most recent IGF session is, 
among many other things, a number of stark statements that ask for other 
critical Internet resources, and other subjects in Internet governance, to 
regain attention, time, energy, and space.

What good can be taken from a rational, thorough, informed discussion of 
ICANN is that you can identify what other multi-stakeholder forums can 
take from the ICANN experience to be structured, how they must function, 
to actually solve problems.

I suggest that if you take a good look at the anti-phishing world, for 
example, you will begin to find there some really valuable experiences.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:28:06 +0530
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
>     Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Lee McKnight' <lmcknigh at syr.edu>,
>     veni at veni.com
> Subject: RE: Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: 
>     	[governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system
> 
> Lee McKnight wrote:
>
>> That adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' was used by AT&T to argue
>> against getting busted up back in mid-80s; from a political economy
>> perpesctive one might argue that that was as important as the us dod
>> backing in teh growth of the Internet, because new entrants like Sprint
>> and MCI were the 1st movers building backbone nets for the Internet.
>
> A corporate monopoly is entirely different from a body that does work on
> public private partnerships and consensus. Too bad, the processes seem (at
> least in the public eye) stalled - especially because there are enough
> strong views on both sides of a few equations to avoid consensus, or because
> there are enough business interests around pulling in different directions
> or ... [plenty of reasons there]
>
> You won't get different results from what's already going on if you simply
> break up ICANN - you will instead have a bunch of different people doing
> their own thing is all.
>
> I'll even go out on a limb and say that, for a lot of countries, local and
> international Internet / iGov policy is being set by their telecom ministry
> and regulator simply to tilt the playing field in favor of their incumbent
> telco.
>
> Like - if too many ISPs start offering MPLS VPN services, so that people who
> were buying point to point leased line circuits from the incumbent telco to
> link their remote offices with HQ now decide to buy ADSL lines for the
> remote offices and VPN their employees there .. why then, just introduce a
> steep "VPN tax".
>
> 	srs
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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