[discuss] So-called alternate roots
drc at virtualized.org
Sat Jan 4 18:34:52 UTC 2014
On Jan 4, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> I am only an analyst who professionnally knows enough things about computers, network, people and projects of entrepreneurs I work with not to have predetermined positions, and to be open minded about innovation and what I report.
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"?
> 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.
> * 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.
> * 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. 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.
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".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the discuss