I think we are beginning to converge, but are still running in
different paradigms, so that our same words mean different things to
each of us.
I see in your text below, some sense that one way to solve the
problem of ICANN is to declare it to be a public enemy, and then call
the troops to wage war on the declared enemy.
That of course will justify them in waging war on us.
I propose that we do noting of that kind.
Instead, what we need to do is work around ICANN,
knowing they are there, but working around them none-the-less.
This way, neither of us has to get into a fight,
and we do not need to involve lots of other people in "our war".
All we really need to do is to find a way to stop fighting among ourselves,
and find a way to maintain what we have been recently calling our
"Inclusive DNS Root Service" where-in, we include the ICANN root plus
our own additions to that root, so our root is inclusive, and their
root is exclusive.
This is of course, more or less what we are doing now, except that we
are splintered into fighting camps. Unfortunately some people solve
their
problems by fighting, and so our job is to work around this also.
Not by beating them in a war and claiming the spoils, but by somehow
getting them to play our non-zero-sum game, in place of their
zero-sum game.
This means that we are together in this mess, and that when one of us
gains value from the game, no one else need be losing what the
gaining person gained.
Our game should be to add value to all of our participants by making
the whole of our enterprise worth more to everyone that is in the
game with us.
The collective whole of a smooth running stable inclusive Root is
surely worth much more than a fragmented bunch of roots that is run
by a bunch of people who are fighting with each other.
We need to present to the world a coherent image, in place of our
current incoherent image. We can only do this by finding ways to
forge a collective effort.
I am not sure how to do this, but I do know that this is what we need.
Cheers...\Stef
At 14:27 -0600 10/09/01, Ken Freed wrote:
>I can understand you, Gordon, and still have my own perspective.
>
>The trust you hope to see perhaps grows out of folks interacting
>with mutual respect for one another, which for me grows out of
>that global sense of our deep interactivity I keep talking about.
>I have a long way to grow, personally, to achieve this level of
>maturity, but tiny progress every day adds up over a lifetime.
>And so I do what little I can from where I am to make a dent.
>
>Most of us think we're isolated and powerless. That's a lie.
>When Stef talks about the power at the edge of the network,
>this is where I'm focusing, empowering individuals for action.
>
>The practical problem is that we need a common framework
>for responsible behavior that honors the rights of all players,
>like we need a common language to communicate clearly.
>I'm advocating an inner sense of global interactivitiy that
>guides us to balance our freedom with responsibility.
>
>Since we lack the emotional, political or even spiritual maturity for
>responsible self rule (so far), we need laws to govern our actions.
>Law is the fundamental Social Contract keeping civilization from
>descending into chaos. When we finally grow up into adulthood,
>anarchy may work. Until we do learn how to live responsibly free,
>I favor laws over kings for setting bounds on civil conduct. Right
>now we have the fox guarding the henhouse. Apart from the rule
>of law and asserting our natural right to enjoy self determination,
>how else would you propose stopping the ravages of ICANN?
>
>Indeed, the more I think about it, could a lawsuit be the answer?
>(There never was any public vote to privatise the public Internet,
>and there never was any public vote giving authority to ICANN.)
>And if so, in what venue could the plaintiffs gain a fair hearing?
>And who could or would put up the money to sustain the suit?
>Is there anyone with deep pockets AND a deep conscience?
>
>-- ken
>
>Ken Freed
>Publisher, Media Visions Journal
>http://www.media-visions.com
>
>"Deep literacy makes global sense"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Which is why we need laws governing the DNS, not committees.
> >>-- ken
> >>
> >>P.S. Richard: Your address: ("Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> >> always bounces as "undeliverable", if that info is
>helpful to you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND ken.......
> >
> >although I admitt I didn't fully understand until I called steff
> >voice a couple of hours ago and asked him to explain the TCP function
> >as a tust mechanism for IP.
> >
> >laws shmaws...... the bloody hell with laws...... yes in grade
> >school they taught us that laws were good....but any gd laws in any
> >gd legilature are gonna be the laws the control freaks o the icann ip
> >police want........
> >
> >so don't talk laws.,...... you are wasting all our time...... the
> >only way end to end can work is if the ends can trust each
> >other.........
> >
> >if someone has enough money to sue department of commerce over icann
> >let them do so!!!!! If no one steps up to the plate then turn to
> >trust issues and start DEALING with rewality
> >
> >by the way if you throw out the ICANN roots from your dns
> >
> >
> >and use the following ip addresses for your name server
> >204.80.125.130
> >204.57.55.100
> >199.166.24.1
> >
> >richard sextons non standard dns works fine
> >
> >
> >ARGH!!!! i have used these for about 2 years 7 by 24
> >--
> >****************************************************************
> >The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
> >(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years
> > of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com From now
> >through Sept 15th
> >half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL
> >back issues.
> >Site license $575 and all back issues $300.
>http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml
> >****************************************************************
