The history of networking will show that in the
late 1980's and early 1990's the "Internet" was
but one of numerous competing and in many ways
complimentary models. It didn't hurt that the
Internet was backed by US Government, military,
"intelligence" and industrial agencies. But it
was not alone in it's vision of creating a
communications network. There was Fidonet and
I was part of one called "OneNet" and there
were others as well. Unfortuantely we have been
lax in stressing this fact. And in applying the
lessons we learnt elsewhere to this sometimes
frighteningly unimaginative Internet and it's
various self-promoting poobahs and personages
What we are witnessing is *not* a technical or
technological debate. As Roeland Meyers pointed
out in his appended article there are *no* barriers
to diversity on that front. Ten years ago we could
have had diversity in all aspects of this Internet
creature. Except for the fact that the implanted
POLITICAL leadership of the Internet wanted to
preserve their prefered, monopoly status. It
thrilled the cockles of their hearts and flushed
their bank accounts with fat money to hold all
the cookies in their jars. And the rest of us, with
ideas that often run counter to their conceptions,
have to starve and suffer or go to hell.
The tools exist to blow open the Internet to endless
possibilites. Transparently, effectively and without
a poot of revolution. Build it. Do it. Damn the nay
sayers and true believers! We have the imagination
and all of the equipment and know how. Gateways and
pathways and bypasses and route arounds can all
accomplish what a million years of debate won't!
Just let us god damned well do it! Enough discussion.
My respect for the tolerance displayed by Roeland
Meyer and Richard Sexton increases daily. Even if the
alternate TLDs follow the same top-down rules the future
has room for *ALL* models and all networking paradigms.
The time of orthodoxy and one-think must mercifully be
drawn to a close. Diversity, multiplicity, wild and
uncontrolled possibilities must be unleashed. Using our
minds to bridge all gaps, mend all differances and
meld it all into one amazing expression of a humanity
capable of vastly more than we have ever imagined.
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ http://fcn.net
Roeland Meyers writes:
> Actually, Richard and I have spoken about this quite some time
> ago. I have also mentioned it to Chris Ambler. A part of
> "everything right" is providing a gateway mechanism for those
> systems that can not resolve the TLD, yet have mail to deliver.
> It is one of a few remaining technical barriers to non-rooted
> TLDs. There is an answer in the implementation of a few "smart
> relay" hubs, that act as gateways... (edit)
>
> The point is that the technology is there, and has been there,
> for over ten years. el has a good point that mail delivery should
> be paramount. However, to refuse to acknowledge the "other"
> space's existence is pure elitist snobbery, IMHO. Although, el has
> the god-given right to be a snob and I will defend his right to be
> an elitist as well, if he wants to be one.
>
> Why does a domain *have* to be in the roots to get recognized
> and/or routed? That is a question that has also been asked for
> over ten years. I have not yet heard a defensible answer, in ten
> years. Just a load of dogma, every time it is asked. It appears
> that the main purpose of the root-servers control is to keep the
> "riff-raff" out and nothing more.
>
> The InterNet is supposed to be a network of networks. It is
> allowed, in the original specs, that disparate addressing
> mechanisms be used and the DNS was *supposed* to alleviate the
> problems with cross-mapping addresses. (Did you know that Lucent
> *still* uses bang-path addressing in their mail systems?) In this
> crowd, at any rate, this intent has been deeply subverted, from
> day-one. Some of you, whom have been around long enough to know
> better, have the memory of Alzheimer's patients. Maybe it is more
> accurate to say that you wished that the rest of us did?
>
> The FidoNet SysOp lives by one credo "the mail must get through".
> I think we need to work on that one a bit. As I say, el has a
> point. But, preventing the issuance or use of alt-TLDs isn't the
> answer. Building systems that would allow them to be used, even by
> snobs, is.
