3 ms·

Quorum / consensus seem to have a problem where players are factionalized or share dissimilar aims. See: various UN bodies Particularly with bodies where alig

by ethbro 7y ago

Quorum / consensus seem to have a problem where players are factionalized or share dissimilar aims. See: various UN bodies Particularly with bodies where alignments of players change, or where new players are added. Either you set the threshold too low, and it doesn't represent consensus; or you set it too high, and the body is gridlocked by minority dissent. Consensus seems to work better when at least all players share a nominally similar interest (read: not hot-button international geopolitics).

bob1029 7y ago
I do agree that the actual implementation of this body would be tricky to balance. But, the stakes involved here are pretty high. Virtually everyone has a vested interest in globally-consistent DNS resolution, excepting a few rouge actors. That said, even things that 99% of the world can agree upon (e.g. stop building nuclear weapons so we don't vaporize ourselves) are not being taken to heart by a large number of actors today. Perhaps we simply look at China & Russia as the worst-case situations, and try to build policies from these perspectives. Would it be that terrible for the rest of the world if Russia decided to break away from the internet and form a domestic internet? Obviously, many businesses and individuals would become impacted by this. But, if no compromise can be reached in a global body, this is seemingly an acceptable outcome for all other actors. We already collaborate with China on dismantling the intent of a free and open internet for their citizens, so I don't think there is any way through this where we don't end up a little dirty in the process. Maybe what we do is proceed with the globalization of DNS and just build the best goddamn internet we possibly can. If the dissenters do not want to participate initially, they will likely have to re-join the rest of the world once they realize the financial impact of not doing so.
- ethbro 7y ago
  > Virtually everyone has a vested interest in globally-consistent DNS resolution I'd disagree and instead say that most nation-states prioritize their own aims (e.g. copyright policing, piracy, sanctions) above having a globally-consistent name resolution, where the two come in conflict. And furthermore, many states prioritize their own economic development above globally-consistent name resolution. E.g. How many English domain names are owned by Liberians? The trouble with international consensus is that is has to build one something that everyone wants. ... And the closest I could come to that would be a hash-based GUID resolution system. (IOW, something that lacks scarcity)

by ethbro 7y ago

bob1029 7y ago

I do agree that the actual implementation of this body would be tricky to balance. But, the stakes involved here are pretty high. Virtually everyone has a vested interest in globally-consistent DNS resolution, excepting a few rouge actors. That said, even things that 99% of the world can agree upon (e.g. stop building nuclear weapons so we don't vaporize ourselves) are not being taken to heart by a large number of actors today. Perhaps we simply look at China & Russia as the worst-case situations, and try to build policies from these perspectives. Would it be that terrible for the rest of the world if Russia decided to break away from the internet and form a domestic internet? Obviously, many businesses and individuals would become impacted by this. But, if no compromise can be reached in a global body, this is seemingly an acceptable outcome for all other actors. We already collaborate with China on dismantling the intent of a free and open internet for their citizens, so I don't think there is any way through this where we don't end up a little dirty in the process. Maybe what we do is proceed with the globalization of DNS and just build the best goddamn internet we possibly can. If the dissenters do not want to participate initially, they will likely have to re-join the rest of the world once they realize the financial impact of not doing so.

ethbro 7y ago
> Virtually everyone has a vested interest in globally-consistent DNS resolution I'd disagree and instead say that most nation-states prioritize their own aims (e.g. copyright policing, piracy, sanctions) above having a globally-consistent name resolution, where the two come in conflict. And furthermore, many states prioritize their own economic development above globally-consistent name resolution. E.g. How many English domain names are owned by Liberians? The trouble with international consensus is that is has to build one something that everyone wants. ... And the closest I could come to that would be a hash-based GUID resolution system. (IOW, something that lacks scarcity)