Hubris? it has already lasted 40. Hubris was proposing that the Clinton-Gore campaign deploy a Web server in the White House when we had 100 people using it. I can understand why people might not want to worry about long term issues but not why you would want to insult people who do think about them. Particularly in your particular case. You botched DNSSEC deployment because you were incapable of considering such issues and if we accept your argument now we will get another botch job. The fact that outcomes cannot be predicted with 100% certainty does not mean that all outcomes are equally likely or that we have absolutely no control over them or that there is no point in discussing them. In context the statement was that we should not design infrastructure on the basis that we can trust the individuals we put in charge of them now. One of the fundamental reasons ICANN governance is a disaster is that people who could and should have known better had assumed we could trust Jon Postel. More importantly for this issue, the fact that we might trust them does not mean we should expect others to do so. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Remember that we are trying to build a network that is going to last >> for hundreds if not thousands of years. > > some of us do not have such hubris. > >> I don't think it likely that the RIRs or ICANN or even the IETF lasts >> that long. If it does it will be in a very different form. > > i suspect the same is true for the internet. i bet it will be quite > different in much less than a hundred years. > > so can we please stick to engineering, not omnipotence. > > randy -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/