Bill, I agree completely that there must be standards, guidelines (some even strict), rules and regulations. Utter chaos will gain us nothing but a technological Tower of Babel. However, many a standard has been documented post facto. IETF RFC's are not all visionary conceptual documents that foresaw the need for a given technology or methodology. Many (if not most) have been developed due to input from the "soft underbelly" to which you refer. Regulation and control for their own sake is socialism. Gene Marsh +++++ Hi Bill Lovell, you wrote on 6/20/99 5:34:33 PM: >At 02:05 PM 6/20/99 -0700, you wrote: > >Ed Gerck writes of rights, rights, rights, like some teen age kid. >Adults, including virtually the entire electronics industry, has >been able to grow and thrive because of a sense of responsibility >-- a willingness to agree upon standards, open software, IEEE >and many other definitions of terms, etc., etc. The soft underbelly >of the internet is the 'rights' and 'freedom' freaks who will maintain >anarchy as long as they possibly can. And sure, as the saying >goes there is also something intriguing about 2 + 2 = 5, but you >can't run a railroad on it. > >(Not often I jump into these little squabbles, but on this day that >honors fathers I'm happy to acknowledge that mine taught me better.) > >Bill Lovell > >Ellen Rony wrote: > >> Ed Gerck wrote: >> >> >So, by calling for NSI (or anyone else) to distinguish between the >> >different meanings *you* or any organization quite arbitrarily assign to >> >a particular byte combination such as .ORG and .COM, you are essentially >> >repeating the very same mistake of those that you get upset with >> >> I wouldn't call the RFC that originally established the .COM, .ORG, etc. >> structure an arbitrary assignment. RFCs go through a process. > >Please realize that you are trying to assign authoritative worldwide >jurisdiction >and meaning to the letters ORG, based on something called "Request For >Comments" ;-) and which is followed or not followed on a purely voluntary >basis. As many RFCs are not followed, some are and many won't be in >the next future -- all, voluntarily. Even the so-called STD (for >Standards) >are again, merely recommendations. And, this is their strength -- that no >one is enforcing them but they are used on *their own merits*, or changed, >or abandoned also on their (lack of) merits. Societies evolve and the >Internet >evolves much faster, one Internet-month is perhaps many years in normal >business time. Trying to coerce the Internet is not what made it expand ;-) >BTW, this also connects to the "other" current problem as I mentioned >before >;-) > >So, it does not make sense to make NSI or anyone "obey" an RFC, not even >an STD >or an ITU-T Recommendation. The Internet is not a "Public Resource" that >would >need to follow an intergovernmental agreeement like we have for simple >things like >even the sizes of envelopes that are allowed to be posted. The Internet >is >a global >network of *private* networks that share the same internetworking protocol >-- >in collaboration, not in conformance. > >There is nothing to enforce here, but there is a lot to talk about ;-) > >To say otherwise and try to read Requests for Comments or Standards as >law is the same mistaken reasoning but is even more arbitrary than >assigning >authoritative worldwide jurisdiction and meaning to something endorsed by >the very many shareholders of Volkswagen AG as to the letters VW. No >one on the Internet has one duty to follow any VW AG. standard or RFC, >in the same way that we have no duty to follow any WIPO RFC anyway, as >even WIPO recognizes. > > >> At some point, identifiers must be defined, otherwise we don't even have >any >> reference points for discussion. > >You can define them, Joe Doe can define them, the IETF can define them, >but no one has the right to demand them to be used. This is the basic flaw >in the thinking -- the Internet is not a public park, it is the sum of >*private* >resources that work in collaboration on a strictly voluntary basis. And, >if >you don't interoperate the problem is yours -- you will be out. So, there >is >value -- and much value -- in interoperation but no value at all and no >power at all in enforcement. BTW, do you know the story of Geoff >Goodfellow's HOSTS.TXT list and how he upstaged the NIC? It would >make a good piece of example in current times, IMO. > >And, Yes -- "People DO ascribe meanings to names." but that "people" >can be anyone, as no one is more "people" than anyone else ;-) So, no one >can force meaning upon names unless by proper and usually lenghty >procedures accepted in a society according to a mandate and within that >jurisdiction -- it is called law. But, even law does not ascribe meaning, >proper >laws are never innovative -- they merely reflect what a society *already* >has define as valid. > >> I was not calling for NSI to distinguish between the different meanings >> because, as Chuck Gomes has said, it is an increasingly futile >proposition >> to determine who is deceitful, what is commercial, and what is not. >> However, it is a very different matter to proactively ENCOURAGE people >and >> organizations to register the same name in all three TLDs. That approach >> reduces the current namespace by 2/3. > >I don't buy the "reduction of namespace" by 2/3 because each one is free to >do whatever they want and they may really want to buy many domain names for >the same reason that people buy whatever they want ;-) And, if NSI or any >other >registry wants to encourage people to buy in bulk, isn't that the same >thing >that >Pepsi-Cola (for example) does when it sells cans only in 12-pack? Why >couldn't >a registry offer *more*?? > >And, why should anyone feel it is right to over-regulate what a private >company >does and then demand that that company should behave like a private >company and compete? I think this is an intrinsic contradiction and we can >never demand anything if we are the ones unduly maiming the development. >The Internet market has many sides -- however, contrary to some opinions >I frequently read in reports, IMO the Internet is no longer an experiment! >To treat the Internet as an "experiment" is IMVHO another basic flaw -- >though it does justify both inaction and feet dragging ;-) > >> Mankind will forever squabble over territory, real or virtual. The >Internet >> is the territorial imperative redux, whatever we decide to call its >> component lots or plots. It's amazing that telephony has remained so free >> of discord, but that system, is primarily recognized by numbers and not >> names. > >;-) "free of discord" is not what I see but I do see it free of many user >rights. It is a different name model -- phone numbers are objective and >finite names. Phone numbers do not belong to you, they can be changed at >any time. Would you like NSI to change your domain name as they want? >They could if they behave like a phone company (and their policy, >actually). >But that is not all -- heard about "slamming"? It's when your phone company >"slams" you over to another carrier, that has a higher price, and you just >verifiy when the bill arrives. So, NSI could also "slam" you over to >another >registry, couldn't they? They could if they follow the "amazing" system >you mention ;-) > > >> >BTW, is this mistake not also at the root of the "other" current >problem? >> >> Which current problem would that be, because I've got ICANN on my mind >> right now and I can think of several significant problems that are not >> based on the name model but the administrative model. >> >> As to namespace, I identify the meta pressures contributing to the >current >> problem as: >> - the desire of people to have whatever name they want for use in >cyberspace; > >It is their right. > >> - the desire of people to find whoever they want in cyberspace; > >It is their right. > >> - the desire for entrepreneurial and/or technical control of a portion of >> cyberspace, presumably for personal or organizational gain. > >It is their right. > >> All these are rooted in self-interest, so I expect the Internet community >> will be squabbling until doomsday over the administration of Internet >names >> and addresses. > >;-) perhaps because you think the above rights are in contradiction. >Perhaps just the *current system* is in contradiction to these rights, >not Nature nor law. > >Cheers, > >Ed Gerck +++++++++++++++++++++ I'm very happy @.HOME Gene Marsh president, anycastNET Incorporated
