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

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 18 nov. 07 à 02:35, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>
>> 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,
>
> The trouble with an "elephant in the room" as several people have  
> described
> ICANN is that it leads to a total loss of perspective, at the  
> expense of
> other issues, of equal or even greater concern and relevance.

Loss of which perpective?
ICANN is not the elephant in the room, it's the gatekeeper of a room  
that should be everyone's room, deciding:
- who can enter and who is denied any right to be in the room
- how much one should pay to enter
- how one should behave in the room
- who has more rights than others in the room
- in case of dispute, how they should be resolved in order to enforce  
such unbalance of rights
- which language should be spoken in the room
- etc. the list is long

On this list (not to mention other far more important fora), we're  
constantly witnessing this attitude: don't even talk about ICANN,  
"there are other issues of equal or even greater concern and  
relevance". What prevents from also discussing other issues? It's not  
a matter of an Either/Or here. Anti-spam/phishing/whatever should be  
discussed? Yes, of course, like many other issues. Those who want to  
discuss these, please go ahead, others will listen carefully, because  
the outcomes of such discussion would be useful in any a system, with  
1, 10, 100 or 1000 ICANN(s). In the mean time, please let other  
people freely discuss ICANN, thanks. And if those discussing Anti- 
spam etc. also want to discuss ICANN, they're welcome, provided that  
they don't use the "there are other issues of equal or even greater  
concern and relevance" non-argument.

Actually, during WSIS and now it's going on at IGF, this is exactly  
what's happening: constantly beating around the bush, when the real  
point is to ensure noone directly addresses the main issue for which  
WSIS as well as IGF have been set up. The fact that ICANN is  
conceding from time to time some points, when pressure is too hard  
that it may loose too much if not doing so, is far from satisfactory,  
and soon clarified (e.g. "ICANN has agreed to work in partnership  
with the International Telecommunication Union and the United Nations  
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to  
encourage a multilingual cyberspace, and in fact co-hosted an IGF  
session with these bodies, but no formal agreement was signed. ICANN  
appologies for any misunderstanding that may have resulted in this  
regard.", http://www.icann.org/announcements/ 
announcement-2-15nov07.htm).

Simply think how long and difficult steps it took to include CIR  
(critical internet resources) as one of IGF II main themes. OK, now  
Carlos had the opportunity to carry the 'Jack the ripper' approach to  
one IGF plenary session (see http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/ 
IGF2-Critical%20Internet%20Resources-12NOV07.txt). And here we cannot  
even starts discussing it? Unbelievable!

Carlos added: "Let's go part by part". This is exactly the point I've  
made when starting this discussion (as I do from time to time to  
check where we are on this list in our collective ability to at least  
consider having a serious discussion about this): we may have some  
different approaches of the sizes of respective parts, how they  
should be managed and coordinated, etc., but that's not an issue. Let  
interested people go ahead refining this proposal.

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