A very good example of the kind of attitude we are dealing with. Let's ignore the nastiness, for now. This anonymous commenter apparently cannot see any difference between a private action (creating "your own DNSSEC signed root" or "adding a new SSL certificate" to your own computer) and a set of decisions and processes that are globally binding and affects millions of autonomous Internet service users and suppliers. If I configure my own DNSSEC signed root, no one has to use it and only I and a few of my communication partners are affected. If ICANN and the USG do it, everyone is affected. Under those circumstances, getting people to agree on how it is done and who does it is a political as well as a technical issue. And it is political not because evil academics seeking "relevance" make it so, but because it involves the interests, trust, cooperation and agreement of multiple parties, all of whom have major economic and political stakes in the outcome. If anyone is making this political, it is the US government; if there is "no place for politics" in handling the root zone, why does the USG insist on controlling and "supervising" the process and dictating the technical standards? If it does not involve control, then why can't they open up and let other international participants in? This poster's belief that technical people can just go into a closed room and solve the Internet's problems without any pressure from politics or governments is also rather naive. But, as I said at the opening, this post is an excellent example of what kind of attitudes prevail in certain circles, and therefore we welcome it.