[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> What *I* do with names does not interfere with Internet operation.
> You said you use domain names to reach desired sites. Catering
> slavishly to this *convenience* is exactly what is leading ICANN
> away from technical supervision and into the morass of
> governance, despite the absence of a countable population, or a
> revenue stream, or even much street credibility. The result
> promises to be one damned strange kind of convenience, imho.
I have been using domain names, and hostnames before them, long before
ICANN or any of these other so-called "governance bodies" appeared on
the scene. I am using them for their intended purpose.
For what it's worth, I have also used IP addresses, and even the
antiquated host/imp syntax (anyone remember when using TIPs, you had
to give the @o command to connect to a host?), when necessary. I have
hacked programs to map uucp hostnames to paths. I have answered
countless emails back in the day explaining how to email sites with
bizarre address syntaxes. I resent the notion that just because I am
using (relatively) easy to understand names to access network
resources, I am somehow being irresponsible or failing to understand
some fundamental truth about domain names.
Why don't you start practicing what you preach? Show us some evidence
that renaming domains to difficult to remember character strings is
somehow going to end virtually all of the domain name disputes,
without severely impacting Internet usage. Why don't you write a real
RFC documenting how you would make the requisite changes, rather than
just a parody of one?
> The inability of many on this list to grasp the implications of their
> favorite positions is the source of a lot of IFWPs pointless
> bickering. I agree you are not one of the more vocal contributors,
> but if you have a theory of governance that does not imply a
> dispute-resolution mechanism, now is a good time to roll it out.
I don't have any "theory of governance." I have been advocating
technical, reasoned solutions all along. In the absence of such, I
have been advocating compromise solutions that fit into established
practice that impose only a minimum of impact on Internet users. When
all else fails, I have stressed education -- going to the RFCs and
other relevant sources for clarification.
>> I *do* understand some of the concerns the TM interests have. This
>> does not mean I agree with the methods they are using to address
>> these concerns.
> Do you agree that those concerns did not arise until money started
> changing hands? The direct consequence is conflict of one sort and
> another,and the open invitation for an unelected, unaccountable,
> nontransparent supranational agency dedicated to monetarist principles
> to take over. There are several ways to avoid such consequences, but
> they require treating the cause not the symptoms; that is, to go
> 'upstream' to the source of the systemic injury.
This is where we part company. I see the fundamental problem
differently than you. So you should pursue solutions that you feel
will work, and let me pursue solutions I feel will work.
--gregbo
