[discuss] So-called alternate roots

Sun Jan 5 00:10:16 UTC 2014

At 19:34 04/01/2014, David Conrad wrote:
>To quote you: "I am not interested in this ICANN/status-quo 
>smokescreen issue we all know the no-interest cons/pros by heart"
>How does the above statement you've made correspond to any 
>interpretation of "not to have predetermined positions" and/or "be 
>open minded"?

???

David, when you buy something do you consider and trust in the same 
way the notice, your interest in the object, and the sales pitch when 
they contradict?.

Or do you have an agenda against responsible people trying to be 
neutral, realistic, and open minded?

> > 1. I raised a few questions to know what 1NET was about and what 
> people (who are experts or in charge in their field) really think .
> > 2. I thank everyone for the responses I received. What I can 
> report so far is:
> >* 1NET represents a technical and political internet governance 
> debate where Govs, Technicians, multilateral organizations, and 
> civil society contributors are trying to consolidate their positions.
>
>I'd probably say it represents a venue in which such debates may 
>occur.  Asserting that the various contributors are "trying to 
>consolidate their positions" would appear to be your personal and 
>subjective evaluation that appears to lack concrete evidence.

So you think they just discuss without any purpose?
That they do not want to build and consolidate a consensus?
Or do you have a croncrete evidence that the contributors do not want 
to reach common positions?
Very odd of yours.

> > * without any consideration for sciences, reality, users, 
> sovereign uses. The same for DNS, IPv6/IPv4, networking architecture, etc.
>
>On the contrary: a number of people (Brian, Andrew, Phillip, Milton, 
>etc.) have tried to point out that there are considerations in all 
>of the areas you mention.  That you choose to assert that there has 
>been no consideration is telling.

Well.
Please quote what are the contructive positions of these people in 
the DNS, IPv6/IPv4 and networking architecture areas in regards the 
the network/technology best use (not only design and management).

> > * one does not know who to eventually trust and why. MSism means 
> political and technical positions, not decisions by others, but by oneselve.
>
>True enough. As we have learned yet again, trust is not something 
>you can delegate to others.
>
> > 3. The only consensus (actually opposed by everyone's "it cannot 
> work") is that one should be able to test everything. It is also 
> not documented by any RFC or charter about using the internet as 
> its own test-bed for experimenting what is technically and 
> politically disputed.
>
>Err, it's the Internet. One of the nice things about the Internet is 
>that you're pretty much free to test anything you want and there is 
>a long history of "fixing the airplane in flight". You don't need an 
>RFC, although RFCs (or other documentation) can be helpful if you'd 
>like others to test with your. You don't need permission, in fact 
>there is no one to which you can even ask for permission.

And you really want people to trust this "airplane in flight"????
Why do you speak of permission???
Unless testers are irresponsible what they need is guidance, 
expertise, MS testing governance

Denying the need for a technical internet governance is denying the 
practical coordination - hence the practical capacity - for community 
testing and therefore Internet technology innovation. You only do not 
want community testing if you want status-quo.

>No one is stopping the "let's use classes for multiple roots" folks 
>from experimenting and coming up with the perfect multi-root 
>solution.  However, no one is forcing (or even can force) the rest 
>of the Internet to even notice, much less play along.  That's 
>decentralization for you.

How professionnally, technically, politically responsible this sounds!
All I note is: these are the position of a former IANA manager. A 
contradiction with the conditions listed by ICANN ICP-3. So there are 
diverging positions within ICANN as well as with the IETF.

How do you want users to trust the I*people?  Frightning when one 
considers that the world economy depends on the IANA .

David, are you realizing that you just tell Govs, ITU and the rest of 
the world: "Go ahead and compete with ICANN, we do not demand a 
transition to be organized"?

>Perhaps related, I note that you chose not to answer:
>
> >>> Should not inter-root administrators governance to be set-up to 
> avoid confusions, discuss IP issues, and foster coopetition be part of the IG?
> >>
> >> Before we pursue creating a superstructure to facilitate 
> inter-root administration, can you point to any non-trivial 
> deployment of server software, resolution libraries, or 
> applications that support a class other than IN?  If so, can you 
> point to any non-trivial user community with which discussions can occur?
>
>I gather your answer to the above questions is "no".

Obviously, it is "yes".

MG