[discuss] Where am I wrong?
jcurran at istaff.org
Fri Mar 7 18:06:59 UTC 2014
On Mar 7, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Elisabeth Blanconil <info at vgnic.org> wrote:
> Concerning the outcome of the Sao Paulo meeting, I believe the same as ARIN concerning the best outcome for the WCIT. It should be one that:
> - maintains the multi-stakeholder environment to the best extent possible.
> - ensures the resulting Internet Governance best practices reflect high-level principles that are updated to meet today's environment.
> - keeps technology neutral and does not mandate items that could have a detrimental effect on the Internet's evolution and stability.
For those seeking a reference to the above:
> This is not what I see being targeted on this list where are discussed:
> - a DNS *Authority* (not an open MS system) while no definition is being given of the internet, the internet community, globalization, stakeholder, multi-stakeholderism functioning.
> - technical details concerning one single authoritative DNS class over 35,635, the DNS being only one of the possible digital naming systems
> - the technical numbers and parameters are tied to self-assumed monopolies (ICANN, RIRs) not originated from nor subject to the MS review of the internet community?
> I would appreciate one tells me where I am wrong.
Consider it done -
First, you do correctly indicate that folks are spending a lot of time
discussing one naming protocol (DNS) and one particular DNS class (the
"IN" class), and this should not be a surprise given the success that
particular DNS class has enjoyed. Feel free to discuss other naming
protocols and classes, but I'd ask that you doing it among those who
are actually using and interested in those other options (something
not evident to date on this 1net discuss list.)
Also, you speak of "self-assumed monopolies (ICANN, RIRs)", but again,
you are free to configure your equipment with any IP addresses that you
wish, and point them to any nameservers that you wish; you voluntarily
participate in this system, and that is contrary to your statements above
which imply that it is mandatory. As noted above, there are alternatives
but they require that _you_ do the coordination of alternative addressing
and naming with those others who share your views.
In the case of the RIRs, it is worth noting that more than twenty five
thousand Internet service providers, hosting companies, and end users have
been collectively supporting a single coordinated Internet number registry
system including participating (via their membership) in the governance of
the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) who collectively operate it.
If you can demonstrate a better model for open multistakeholder operation
of a globally shared and coordinated registry, then demonstrate it and
let each member of the community decide accordingly.
I do believe that scope and significant economic and social impact of the
Internet does warrant that the policies for the coordination for Internet
identifiers be developed in a very open and transparent manner, and that is
very much the case with the RIR system today, i.e. anyone can participate in
the IP policy development in any region (even entirely via email and remote
participation if so desired)
If you don't like the policies, you have the option to participate in the
policy development processes to change them, and/or in the governance of the
registries themselves, or you can even decide to completely out and perform
your own coordination of identifiers; in any case, you have have far more
choices available then you might with another systems (see "international
telephony numbering system" for one example)
Disclaimer: My views alone.
More information about the discuss