Kerry and all,
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Greg wrote:
>
> > 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.
> ...
> > 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.
>
> I'm quite sure that in your atomism you feel you act 100%
> responsibly: you reach a desired *end A by *means of the
> technical apparatus A' that applies, and Im happy for you. The
> detail I persist in trying to introduce into this happy worldview is
> that for the presently desired end B (e.g. a general principle of
> reconciliation of trademark holders and domainname users), there
> is not yet the technical apparatus B' to apply to it -- that is to say,
> *how to build the apparatus B'* is now a problem C -- and evidently
> neither you nor your technical colleagues have experience in
> contriving methodologies C' out of thin air. Thus the 'pointless
> bickering': for every suggestion of a C' (electorate, constituencies,
> consensus) there is an objection that it doesnt solve *B* -- and for
> every suggestion to solve B (such as ICANN) the objection is that it
> is not a fitting C'! Its no wonder the discussions here go nowhere
> but round in circles.
How true, how true! I am cc'ing this reply to the ICANN Board members in
hopes that they read your comments here along with ours. You have
nicely simplified one of the central problems here that seems to escape
many on these lists and surrounding these discussions and debates.
>
>
> Im trying to say, the 'fundamental truth' is not about domain
> names; they're only a symptom of the problem, which is getting
> people to work *together -- meaning to not only talk but listen
> together; in short, to be responsible *to something besides yourself
> and your technique. This is not a matter of *judgement, but of
> *results. When I see this much brainpower frizzing away in short
> circuits, I suspect irresponsibility.
There sure is allot of irresponsibility to go around!
> (If you or anybody else wants to
> rebut this by saying that no one has given IFWP a 'mandate' to act,
> I will point out that 'nobody told us to respond' is the primary
> rationalization of irresponsibility.)
How true!
>
>
> So you resent discovering that the problem you feel competent to
> solve is not the (first) problem that needs to be solved -- dont we
> all? I'd say, 'get over it' except that telling people what to do is not
> my style -- but maybe you can see what I mean. (N.B. Its not my
> style for the simple reason that *it doesnt work* -- its not a solution
> to a C-type problem -- as others on the list, if they think about it a
> minute, can corroborate. I'm not arguing *against you, in other
> words; Im arguing *with you.)
Yes and this is plainly clear to me anyway. We [INEGroup] have been
making this very argument for some time now. It appears that some
would rather simply argue, rather than corroborate..
>
>
> > 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?
>
> Why do you call it a parody? I identified a problem, outlined a
> minimum-impact solution, and called for comments -- of which
> there were, btw, zero (0).
Opppps! You must have missed ours.
> Am I a computer tech? No (nor do I
> pretend to be one), but I had hoped that the proposal might be able
> to draw on a little expertise here. If the picture has technical flaws,
> by all means lets fix it; if the 'problem' is simply that its approach
> to the situation has not been thrashed from here to Sunday
> already, is it the RFC that needs fixing, or the mindset of its
> readers?
Many RFC's need fixing. That has been well established more than once.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Now theres something we can agree on, no problem -- except for
> the priority. Shouldnt compromise rest on an assurance that the
> stakeholders are educated to the issues? Shouldnt *technique be
> the *implementation of the (minimal-impact) solution?
Yes it should, and this is what the ICANN is supposed to do. However
they have decided to take thing s much further and without any stakeholder
mandate, on purpose, BTW.... Here is where the biggest rub resides.
>
>
> But that brings us back to the 'C problem' of techies having to
> *explain* to the non-tech hoi polloi (aka users), which means they
> would have to listen to the questions instead of just sneering at the
> ignorant terminology (like calling an 'IP address' a 'host' for cryin
> out loud).
>
> Yes, education is at the bottom of it all, problem *and solution
> together; and after all these years of retreat into compouterdom,
> you (and your fellows) are on the spot: why not come on out now,
> and *teach*?
Education is one of the foundations of some of the misunderstandings,
and misconceptions. The ICANN board not withstanding.
>
>
> Cheers,
> kerry
Kindest Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
