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

[Veni Markovski]

Karls and all,
I understand the (sad) history you have had with ICANN. But, to go on
forever with it, makes you something of a (sad) historian, yes?
Let me give you a similar example: I voted in favour of the creation
of a certain TLD (so did Joi Ito; check his blog for the last entry
where he describes that or mine for more detailed explanation). I was
in the minority. That, however sad for me, didn't turn me into a (sad)
historian, pointing out how "unfair" life is.

Anycast started without ICANN you say? I don't know if it did or it
didn't, but do you think it is a good thing, that's the question. As
whether it is dspite or thanks to? I am sure that in some cases it is
thanks to, and for sure one of the places where people discuss root
servers' issues is... ICANN meetings.

You say the board would not hear you. But what is the problem here,
since you have the whole ICANN listening to you? If you couldn't
persuade the board (none of them?), then perhaps this might have been
your error? Just might be. Or you eliminate this possibility by
default?

Lastly, as some already said it; the really important issues about the
Internet users are not the ones ICANN deals with. They are important
for a very small group of people, and if you see who are in this
group, you can aslo respond to the question "why".

Best,
Veni



On 11/17/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> ...
> > 1. The current model is working.
>
> Is it?
>
> First there is the basic matter that the DNS on the internet is no more
> resistant to failure today than it was in 1997 - except on one point:
> The legacy root server operators have undertaken on their own
> initiative, own money, and without asking permission from anybody, to
> deploy anycast routing and thus multiply the actual number of root
> servers from 13 to 10x that number.  This was done in spite of ICANN,
> not by ICANN.
>
> Apart from that, ICANN offers no technical oversight, no protection, no
> recovery support for a possible failure or corruption of the ability of
> DNS to quickly, efficiently, and accurately turn DNS queries into DNS
> responses without bias for or against any query source or any query
> question.
>
> I have long advocated - since year 2000 - that ICANN establish a DNS
> monitoring system to have an early warning when things are going awry.
> I could not get ICANN's board to listen.
>
> I have long advocated "DNS on a DVD" - a bootable system that contains
> enough DNS mechanisms so that communities undergoing emergencies or
> disasters in which communications are disrupted can start to build-up
> their infrastructure from the inside while waiting for the outside to
> build their way back in.  (Having lived through earthquakes, fires, and
> floods, I know the value of local self-recovery rather than sitting and
> waiting.)  But ICANN's response: they did not want to hear it.
>
> Instead ICANN has spent its time and effort dealing with the
> registration side of things - a side of DNS that 99.99999% of users
> don't even know about, much less care about.
>
> It's as if we created a regulatory body to ensure the safety of
> passenger air travel and instead of caring about pilot training,
> maintenance, etc, they care about whether the ticket sales counters are
> open 24x7 and whether there is a ticket exchange policy.
>
> On top of that, ICANN has created a system that, by my estimate, is
> pulling over half a billion dollars (US) out of the pockets of those who
> buy domain names and depositing most of that amount into the bank
> accounts of the very few TLD incumbent registries.
>
> On top of that, internet innovation in the name space has been so
> channeled and constricted that it has shriveled into nothing more than
> an sleazy world of advertising plastered on everything everywhere and a
> load of speculative name registrations that requires registries to build
> out their systems (and charge us for that build out) well beyond what
> would be required had there not been this 5 day
> no-cost-to-the-speculators speculative madness.
>
> Is that not very badly broken?
>
> Besides, from whence comes the authority to say "no" to behavior on the
> net that is otherwise completely lawful?
>
> 		--karl--
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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