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

Thu Nov 22 04:49:31 EST 2007

Francis,

I don't understand your question, and even less if it is intended as  
a demand for "clarification".
I'm using the Internet for long enough to know that, when a  
discussion topic moves to another, it's basic netiquette to change  
the thread on a mailing list or in a Usenet newsgroup or whatever  
discussion group. Actually, a true orthodox, who I am not, would have  
started an entirely new thread, but it's better than nothing:). Note  
that this time I did..
And I'm adult enough to claim that I'm free to discuss any topic I  
want, provided that it falls into the general objectives of the list.

I note that you're the only one showing this reaction, while this  
thread started 7 days ago and has generated quite a high number of  
messages from different participants. What's the point?

And, BTW, speaking of showing respect to others in one's behavior,  
when you reproduce someone else message, please don't change anything  
in it without permission, or at least without making clear that *you*  
introduced the change. This is also valid when simply turning in bold  
some words like you did. Normally, this should be accompanied by the  
note "emphasize is mine" or whatever is the right formulation in  
English ("c'est moi qui souligne", in French).

Thanks.
Meryem

Le 22 nov. 07 à 04:27, Dr. Francis MUGUET a écrit :
> Dear Meryem
>
> Rolling back the thread to answer few question  and to try clarify   
> some issue
> about the NET4D proposal
>
> <Net4DS.jpg>
>
> http://www.net4d.org/
>
>
>
> How it became that the thread DNSsec and allternative DNS system
> became  Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality -
> after your post ?
> Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance]  
> DNSsec and allternative DNS system
>
> Why renaming the thread ?
>
> The linkage with DNSsec is quite important since it increases the  
> importance and power
> of the overseer of a root DNS system.
> why remove it ?
>
> Net Neutrality is an interesting concept that could be applied to the
> network of DNS servers that indeed should be "neutral"
> in regards to the class of the network
> of which are carrying the resolving system.
> It was I could sense from your post, but
> is it what you had  in mind ?
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Yet I would like to underline, against all expected FUD,
>  that the NET4D is not all yet another set of  "boutique" TLDs. that
> have flourished illegally within the IN class, bringing confusion  
> and fragmentation.
>
> Best regards
>
> Francis
>
>
>> Karl,
>>
>> I'm in full agreement with your views on alternate (I do prefer  
>> the concept of existing alternatives, rather than competition,  
>> generally speaking and specially in this context) root systems,  
>> except on one point, dealing with how to ensure consistency:
>>
>> Le 15 nov. 07 à 01:24, Karl Auerbach a écrit :
>>
>>> [...]
>>> But the looser definition of "consistency" that I advocate, new  
>>> TLDs could arise - I call them "boutique" TLDs - that strive for  
>>> sunlight and growth.  They would, at first be found only in a few  
>>> root systems - perhaps because they offer something interesting,  
>>> perhaps they paid their way in, whatever - that's the normal task  
>>> of "building a brand" that goes with any new product that seeks  
>>> space on store shelves.
>>>
>>> Over time some of these boutique TLDs will fail, some will remain  
>>> tiny boutiques that are visible only within the scope of the root  
>>> system that offers them, and some will grow to become new members  
>>> of the "every root must have" club.
>>>
>>> This system permits natural growth of new TLDs without any  
>>> central ICANN-like authority.
>>
>> There is no such "natural" growth, taking into account the fact  
>> that not all TLDs, and specially "boutique" TLDs can afford  
>> "building a brand", which is very costly, or even are intererested  
>> in building such brand.
>> There are alternatives to a "laissez-faire", marked-oriented  
>> approach. Since this list is - sometimes - discussing global  
>> governance issues, why not elaborating and discussing a way to  
>> guarantee that any - "boutique" or not - TLD should be found in  
>> any root system, *provided* that they obey some simple rules to  
>> ensure overall consistency (like, e.g., a TLD string should be  
>> unique: a unique .com, a unique .org, etc., but also a  
>> unique .karl if anyone finds any interest in such a TLD. And any  
>> other needed rule to ensure that everything works fine,  
>> technically -- and to ensure only this objective). It's typically  
>> a network neutrality issue.
>> Who would check that these rules are obeyed? Well, isn't this  
>> exactly the role of a global internet governance institution? Yes,  
>> I know, this requires a lot of elaboration and discussion, not  
>> that simple, but a huge step forward would be accomplished if only  
>> we could agree on the principle that such a discussion should be  
>> started.
>>
>>> Now some will say that "what if I get email from  
>>> somebody at someplace.boutique-tld, how am I to answer it?"
>>>
>>> The answer is that "you don't".
>> [...]
>>>
>>> That's life
>>
>> Not, that's not life. That's free market instead of global public  
>> policy in view of the general interest.
>> And that's certainly not network neutrality.
>>
>> Meryem
>>
>> -- 
>> Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org
>> IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
>> 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris
>> Tel. +33(0)144749239
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> -- - <Net4DS.jpg>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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