Re: [DNSOP] definitions of "public DNS Service"

[Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>]

> On May 23, 2020, at 4:46 AM, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ibm and pch and the other backers of quad9, and the security industry partners who participate, have
> solid personal reasons, just as google and cloudflare and opendns do, for
> running an open recursive name service.

That’s a rhetorical fallacy.  You’re conflating supporters with “runners.”  If IBM or PCH or anybody else run recursive nameservers, that’s fine.  But that doesn’t make them Quad9.  Quad9 is a public-benefit not-for-profit organization.  I like Werner Herzog's movies, and pay to see them in the theater; that doesn’t make me Werner Herzog, it doesn’t make him my puppet, and it doesn’t mean that his movies are no longer accessible by the public.  There’s no path from the A to the B that you’re attempting to argue.

Quad9 exists at the behest of European privacy regulators and data-protection officers, who are representatives of the public.  It provides service to the public.  It is a public-benefit organization, with no private beneficiaries.  It answers to the California Secretary of State for its existence, another representative of the public interest.  If you believe there’s a private interest there, point it out, specifically and unambiguously enough that people can tell what you’re trying to say.  An unfalsifiable argument is just feckless lip-flapping.

If you can’t actually make the point that you’re insinuating, then don’t try to tar Quad9 with the same brush as Cloudflare and Google.

                                -Bill