[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
Greg, > I suggested that Kerry Miller contact > members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in providing > Internet education. I suggested KM join ISOC, if it seemed like a > reasonable thing to do. > > I think people who care about Internet education should read the list > and judge for themselves if this is something they wish to participate > in. > Thank you for the suggestion that I pay to become a member of a group which has 'interests in providing Internet education.' Am I to take it that Internet education is not something that can be addressed in open fora, but must come to the masses from on high? That IFWP, for example, does not have such an interest? (By the way, what *is the reason for this group?) Is it so odd to suggest that education in the very broadest sense is -- in the absence of any other objective -- not a bad interest for a group to have? What Every User Should Know... hey, even some few Board members might learn a thing or two. = You also wrote, > I don't believe that I have said that nothing can be done. For > example: > > * I invited you to post your thoughts here (which you have) in order > that they might get wider distribution. > > * I suggested that you contact members of the ISOC to discuss any > mutual goals you might have in educating Internet users on domain > names. > > * I told you that you should contact people in the Internet technical > community Now I understand! Something can always be done: go somewhere else. (There are, of course, no technical people here!) = Later, you wrote, > Kerry, I give up. You have made your points, and I have made mine. I > have no further comments. Good luck. > What did you give up? What were you hoping to accomplish? kerry
[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
> "[IFWP] has come together to sponsor a >framework of coordinated international meetings, to be held around >the world, at which stakeholders will discuss the transition to >private sector management of the technical administration of >Internet names and numbers as outlined in the policy "White Paper" >recently released by the United States Government. These >international meetings are open to all Internet stakeholders, who >are encouraged to support this on-going process." > > Whether this is what this list is doing right now is open to debate. > I think a lot of people are frustrated, understandably so, because > they feel ICANN has not lived up to the requirements of the White > Paper. Do you mean understandable that the issue of what percentage of an interim decision-making board heading up one management scheme isnt a 'framework' issue? I would have guessed, from the tone of reactions to the Berkman and Singapore gatherings, that even the idea of 'coordinated international meetings' is problematic. What do you suppose it would take to manage a coordinated *online meeting to discuss the transition; in other words, to take Dr Z's suggestion seriously that ICANN is only one of many possible (serial or parallel) experiments? Would that revive the flagging spirits, do you think? kerry
[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
Greg, > > > What do you suppose it would take to manage a coordinated *online > > meeting to discuss the transition; in other words, to take Dr Z's > > suggestion seriously that ICANN is only one of many possible (serial > > or parallel) experiments? > > I think it would take a lot of work. Certainly, the logistics of > enabling participation by the Internet community at large need to be > dealt with. People need to be able to participate using a variety of > tools (usenet news, email, RealAudio, web browsers, telephone, video > conference, MBone, etc.) There is the issue of publicizing the > meetings so all interested parties know about them. Also, there is > the issue of getting support and recognition for this movement. Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/ intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply? Does one think differently when one is in a hurry? Is there a difference between publicizing a meeeting and working out an agenda? Or between a movement which needs support and a 'supporting cast' which needs to move? In other words, might there be 'digital' equivalents of the kind of *structure* which (analog-based, imo) timing represents/ imposes? (If that's too vague, take the converse: is the frustration and aimlessness of IFWP due to its not working to a 'deadline' -- or to its not having any other structure than the endless scroll?) kerry
[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
Greg, > > Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to > > loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/ > > intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply? > > I wasn't trying to imply anything. Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding, providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text- bound?) etc seemed more relevant to an analog (f2f) kind -- but isnt it just that kind of staging which *generates* the sense of urgency that asynchronous communication has happily dispensed with? > > Does one think differently when one is in a hurry? > > Yes, because they believe they have to act quickly to prevent > something from happening or continuing to happen. Surely, if there was some real-time event which needed to be either executed or forfended, the existing structures could act as well as an interim transition team? But my q was more general: the difference between IRC and email conversations, for instance is well known. > > Is there a difference between publicizing a meeeting and working out > > an agenda? > > Yes. Ideally, one would work out an agenda before publicizing > meetings, so the meetings followed the agenda, and participants would > have time to consider the issues beforehand. In digital terms, however, how would one make this distinction of before and after? -- even if it was felt to be necessary? Isnt it conceivable that those who are 'working out' the agenda would be identically the same as those who will 'consider the issues beforehand'? > Beyond what I said before (I think it is due to ICANN not living up to > the requirements of the White Paper), I don't know. Anyone else want > to comment? Tell me again, please, why sponsoring "a framework of coordinated international meetings, to ... discuss the transition" should emotionally involve anyone in the success or failure of the (a) transitional *product of those meetings? kerry
[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Jeff, > > 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). > > Os! You must have missed ours. I guess I did -- The Digest seems to be dropping quite a few items recently. If you have a spare copy, I'd like to read it. Greg, > > > 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? It may be worth clarifying that the RFC was not to *re*name domains, but to extend the naming system. Existing domain names would simply fall in the default 'ISO-8859-1' zero level domain. Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than that which they themselves 'read into' them) although it doesnt do much for the internationalization aspect. (On second thought, it might give Czech and Polish nets a real boost!) However, again, its not a question of renaming; existing 'legible' names will simply have to tough out the Trademark War (although some kind of amnesty might be provided by aliasing certain characters, so that a (possibly contested) mypizzahut registration would appear as myp#zzahut for some transition period). *New names (and new trademarks for that matter) are the problematic area, as I see it; am I wrong? In any case, how is it so productive to debate who is going to 'capture' decision-making power when the kinds of decisions to be made are not at all apparent? Or is there an agenda-promulgation nominating committee (and an APSO?) in the offing? kerry
[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
David, > > The problem is not the lack of good ideas, it is the lack of a mechanism > for implementing them. I'm glad you agree with me, that in conflating 'implementing an idea' with 'implementing the consequences of an idea,' we end up with no mechanism at all. Instead of waiting for top-to-bottom rock-solid incontrovertible *answers to everything that ever was and will be, maybe the better use of a conversation-space such as this is to develop -- that is, implement -- good *questions. As it happens, one can read my 'parodies' in just this light: What prevents ICANN from tying registrar certification (say) to the requirement that only 'unintelligble' names (say) will be registered until such time as an *intelligible TM/DN policy is in place? If such a policy is needed, what *conceptual flaws constrain character-set identified ZLDs as its basis? If ICANN is an 'experiment' as Dr Z has written, can precautions be taken to insure that its impact is minimal, or is it like that first A- bomb experiment at White Sands, where no one was sure it wouldnt just happen to ignite the atmosphere? I look forward to your help in implementing this idea (huh? ask questions instead of ranting??). If it succeeds *as an idea*, I think we may then confidently leave the implementation of its consequences to others. kerry
[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Greg,
> at.om.ism \'at-*-miz-*m\ \-m*st\ n : a doctrine that the universe is
>composed of simple indivisible minute particles - at.om.ist n
>
> I wish you would not use language like this, as it comes off as
> denigrating and insulting, even if it's not meant to be.
>
"... our public belief in atomism legitimates the position of those who
argue that fixing the parts is sufficient as well as the position of those
who argue that fixing the parts has not been effective in the past and that
thus nothing can be done." -- Richard B. Norgaard. _Development
Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the
Future_. London and NY: Routledge, 1994, p 72
I don't believe its much of a stretch to suggest that those who
argue this way do so because their self-image is also atomistic
('individualistic'), since they are themselves conditioned by this
public belief.
> I believe in the very beginning, I told you that DNS was flawed from
> the standpoint of providing suitable representations of trademarked
> names. A more appropriate structure is a distributed directory.
Sounds good to me. Now, is there a way to make operating such a
directory 'competitive'? To protect it from 'capture'? What liabilities
will it face when some registrant is either shown to be flying false
colors -- or is *claimed to be, by someone else? I myself have no
idea; my point is that without a sound principle by which to define
'suitability,' the *logical outcome is rampant proliferation: I wont
make shoes, I'll make indoor-track recreational outerwear, in order
to have a 'non-confusing' domain name. In the end every site will be
its own TLD -- and you'll be back to trying to pull together a central
directory ;-)
> In the meantime, we have to cope with the immediate reality. DNS is
> being used as a virtual directory, but it is also a critical component
> of Internet communications. This being the case, any substantial
> changes to its operation must be carefully considered. Both the impact
> upon the system itself, and its impact upon users must be considered.
By all means, there must be careful consideration. That's why
language, and communication, and ideas are such neat thingies;
we can get together and consider the bejeesus out of things with
nary an impact. But none of them work unless people accept that
they are are not merely useful as a virtual soapbox, but are critical
components of collective action.
Now, if one must choose, does one go with the useful applications,
or with the critical matter? Doesnt 'utility' imply there are other
(albeit less useful) alternatives -- and 'critical,' that there is no
alternative? Then can't we say that *as long as an alternative mode
exists*, it is an expendable use? And, conversely, if there is no
alternative, it'd be foolish to diddle with it? Inasmuch as hard copy
is still an alternative to CMC -- I understand many firms are
preparing for the New Year by this means -- the task of ensuring a
stable basis for networked computers is *first and foremost*, not
half of a juggling act. I, at least, have an abiding faith that people,
being such versatile creatures, will figure out how to use *whatever
basis that turns out to be. ICANN is not NetnANNy.
> Also, from what I
> have seen, most of the debates here concern points of law, and
> miscellaneous complaints about ICANN's mandate and/or Jeff Williams'
> identity, as opposed to technical methodologies for building
> distributed systems.
I see the same, and submit that what we see is atomistic
behaviour. To me, its symptomatic of a problem (and thus give it a
name), whereas you accept it as normative (and think naming it is
denigratory).
> > ...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 (again) is where we part company. We do have to work together,
> and that includes you.
Of course. Pointing out a path doesnt mean I'm standing by the
wayside. But (again) *where the path is is not the problem; its
*getting going* along it -- and if you have running ;-) code to inspire
that, I'm all ears -- in the meantime, Im doing the best I can with
what Ive got (which is your ear...)
> If you call us irresponsible, but refuse to
> acknowledge some key issues, such as the fact that restricting domain
> names to "non-conflicting strings" does not necessarily solve the
> problem, as what is a "non-conflicting string" today may not be
> tomorrow, you should not be surprised that you would get reactions
> such as mine.
I believe there are very few registered trademarks without vowels *at
present*. If ICANN sets a policy that new DNs will occupy this
territory by default, I'm confident that the relevant (and distributed,
btw) departments of commerce will take note of the fact in
considering whether a *future mark of t
[IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Greg, > > What is 'unintelligible' today might be 'intelligible' tomorrow. Why > artificially constrain the namespace? > I'm not sure if you have intentionally elided the terms 'confusing' and 'unintelligible,' or not; the first is from trademark law, while the second is meant to refer simply to 'awkward' character strings (w/o vowels, for instance). In any case, you seem determined not to get my point: that the 'problem' is not this name or that (pissahut), nor is it this concept of priority or that (RegTM), nor is it even this adjudication regime or that (WIPO), but finding a place to stand from which one might go this way or that. Ad hockery is fine on the small scale, as these many years of net operation amply testify, but the whole rationale behind moving to ICANN, as it is behind case law and national constitutions, is that something besides good intentions is required when participants no longer are acquaintances. This something is 'rules and regulations' -- in a word, policy. Call it artificial constraint if you like; I dont think theres much chance of any 'natural' constraint showing up! But again you appear not to understand my suggestion, which is simply to create an unambiguous 'point of beginning.' If then, between net governors on one hand, and trademark arbiters on the other, we are still unable to avoid confusion in the future, maybe we should think about declaring the entire internet experiment a dud; pack it in and go home. Certainly I for one am not interested in the least in creating some thousand-year domain Reich which will never need human adjustment again -- are you? > There might *never* be an 'intelligible' TM/DN policy. It might > forever be a subject of conflict and debate, as other issues at the > intersection of technology and public policy are. Why make innocent > people suffer indefinitely? > A litigious society, one might say, gets the laws it deserves. But in the absence of principle, scaling is *by definition* impossible, and the reason this DNS mess is so interesting is that the scale of the internet *as a realm of policy* is already beyond all precedents of governance. Useful policy emerges (is abstracted) from practice. What the present 'internet governance' process seems to be doing (not least because 'practice,' as evidenced in the courts, is pretty inconsistent) is concocting policy from scratch, by installing a Board first, and then establishing its supporting organizations, and then defining their constituencies. (To some extent, this may be *necessary, but already (with registrar accreditation), ICANN has gone beyond merely creating a framework -- surely it would have been a good 'test run' of the SO structure, if only because it was widely perceived as something to be addressed?) > > If such a policy is needed, what *conceptual flaws constrain > > character-set identified ZLDs as its basis? > > How do we determine if such a policy is needed? For example, what > happens if people *still* try to trademark octet sequences in the > ZLDs? If that were the case, is it possible that the problem might > lie elsewhere, besides the language that is used to specify domain > names? > Dont you think administering a thousand TLDs will need a policy? As to 'what [will] happen,' Im sure people will be people. But by putting a technical distinction (ZLDs for example) in place, the *societal distinctions that courts will need to make will have some substance: 'domainmark' X will run only in the *nominated domain, say Latin-1, and the (character-wise identical) X is available in the other eleven domains, because there is no ground for confusion. The argument *could have been applied to .com and .org, of course, and I imagine if people 5 years ago had known what we know now, they would have taken their internet games a lilttle more seriously. But -- because the language was the same across all 1LDs -- the criterion for selecting one over the other was entirely in the hands of the applicant, and the 'enforcement' of hyr choice was beyond the power of the registrar. Obviously this honor system didnt last long, and the judiciary made things worse by accepting that there might be public (i.e. social, not technical) 'confusion' between .com and .org. So be it, water over the dam and all that: the one thing I have *not suggested is to try to revise that 'definitional hell'! So we've wasted one domain level (from the societal pov) -- so what, if we can learn from the process? But now we're on the verge of having 1LDs all over the place: has Williams or Allisat or you or anyone else even suggested that they would (let alone should) act to ensure that registrants in .per for example really were individuals, either on registration or at any time thereafter? What do such domains do to reduce confusion; that is, to enhance domain namespace (or the net in general) for communication? Zilch. (I
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 02:18:23AM -0004, Kerry Miller wrote: >Thank you for the suggestion that I pay to become a member of > a group which has 'interests in providing Internet education.' Am I > to take it that Internet education is not something that can be > addressed in open fora, but must come to the masses from on > high? 1) You get what you pay for. 2) "From on high" has nothing to do with anything. [...] > That IFWP, for example, does not have such an interest? > > (By the way, what *is the reason for this group?) Exercise in rhetoric. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
*sigh* I'll give it one more try ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > Thank you for the suggestion that I pay to become a member of > a group which has 'interests in providing Internet education.' That's not what I meant. I suggested that you contact the individuals within ISOC who've expressed an interest in education and find out what they are doing. I also suggested that if what they are doing is in line with your goals, you should join them (as individuals). If you feel comfortable joining ISOC, you should, but you shouldn't if you don't want to pay the fee, etc. There might be projects they are working on (as individuals, outside of the ISOC umbrella) that you could collaborate on. For example, I don't remember the woman's name offhand, but one of them has a couple of web sites dedicated to providing Internet access to the poor. I also found a very interesting (imho) website featuring a group of teenagers discussing their online experiences. They were part of INET '98, but I don't know exactly in what capacity. (See www.an.org/inet98). Laura Breeden, who some of you might remember from CSnet, interacted regularly with the teenagers, and had quite a few remarks I found interesting. LB is also involved with a community network project in East Palo Alto (California), which is a poor neighborhood. I also pointed you towards the CPSR article by Andy Oram, which I thought was very well-written. There is a cyber-rights mailing list that CPSR hosts, which you also might find useful as a place to find people to aid you in your educational endeavors. > Am I to take it that Internet education is not something that can be > addressed in open fora, but must come to the masses from on high? > That IFWP, for example, does not have such an interest? That's not what I meant. See above. > (By the way, what *is the reason for this group?) [From www.ifwp.org] What is the International Forum for the White Paper? The IFWP is an ad hoc coalition of professional, trade and educational associations representing a diversity of Internet stakeholder groups, including ISPs, content developers, trademark holders, networkers, intergovernmental groups, policy experts, end-users and others. This coalition has come together to sponsor a framework of coordinated international meetings, to be held around the world, at which stakeholders will discuss the transition to private sector management of the technical administration of Internet names and numbers as outlined in the policy "White Paper" recently released by the United States Government. These international meetings are open to all Internet stakeholders, who are encouraged to support this on-going process. Whether this is what this list is doing right now is open to debate. I think a lot of people are frustrated, understandably so, because they feel ICANN has not lived up to the requirements of the White Paper. > Is it so odd to suggest that education in the very broadest sense is > -- in the absence of any other objective -- not a bad interest for > a group to have? Not at all. I don't mind discussing education, and in fact have enjoyed reading some of the posts from people here who advocate education. I can only speak for myself, however. > Now I understand! Something can always be done: go somewhere > else. (There are, of course, no technical people here!) I think you should just take my comments at face value, because that's the spirit in which they're offered. You seem to be reading more into them than is there. I'm just providing you with additional options. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > Greg Skinner wrote: >> Whether this is what this list is doing right now is open to debate. >> I think a lot of people are frustrated, understandably so, because >> they feel ICANN has not lived up to the requirements of the White >> Paper. > Do you mean understandable that the issue of what percentage of > an interim decision-making board heading up one management scheme > isnt a 'framework' issue? I simply meant that I feel a lot of people are frustrated because the White Paper set forth a set of criteria under which Newco would operate, and so far, ICANN has not lived up to those requirements. > What do you suppose it would take to manage a coordinated *online > meeting to discuss the transition; in other words, to take Dr Z's > suggestion seriously that ICANN is only one of many possible (serial > or parallel) experiments? I think it would take a lot of work. Certainly, the logistics of enabling participation by the Internet community at large need to be dealt with. People need to be able to participate using a variety of tools (usenet news, email, RealAudio, web browsers, telephone, video conference, MBone, etc.) There is the issue of publicizing the meetings so all interested parties know about them. Also, there is the issue of getting support and recognition for this movement. > Would that revive the flagging spirits, do you think? Possibly. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to > loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/ > intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply? I wasn't trying to imply anything. I envision that under ideal conditions, there are a number of ways that on and offline forums might be used to discuss the various issues that are brought up here, with particpants moving freely amongst any and all of them. I do think the overall goals of the forums need to be defined. The IETF model seems to work well for the work that the IETF does, but that model does not seem to work where ICANN is concerned. > Does one think differently when one is in a hurry? Yes, because they believe they have to act quickly to prevent something from happening or continuing to happen. Several people such as Dave Crocker and Jim Dixon have expressed their opinions on what activities need to be prevented or discontinued. > Is there a difference between publicizing a meeeting and working out > an agenda? Yes. Ideally, one would work out an agenda before publicizing meetings, so the meetings followed the agenda, and participants would have time to consider the issues beforehand. > (If that's too vague, take the converse: is the frustration and > aimlessness of IFWP due to its not working to a 'deadline' -- or to > its not having any other structure than the endless scroll?) Beyond what I said before (I think it is due to ICANN not living up to the requirements of the White Paper), I don't know. Anyone else want to comment? --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion > for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding, > providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text- > bound?) etc seemed more relevant to an analog (f2f) kind -- but isnt > it just that kind of staging which *generates* the sense of urgency > that asynchronous communication has happily dispensed with? Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by "digital meeting." I was thinking that providing a variety of tools for conferencing would allow for a diversity of participation means. Asynchronous participation, like email or usenet news, is something that doesn't require much setup (unless it's not available where you are). That might make it seem less urgent. I think there is a preference among people to have face-to-face, or at least telephone conferences because there are some things that are not communicated very well in email and other text-based media. Tone of voice and facial expression lend much to the communication process. > In digital terms, however, how would one make this distinction of > before and after? -- even if it was felt to be necessary? Isnt it > conceivable that those who are 'working out' the agenda would be > identically the same as those who will 'consider the issues > beforehand'? This is certainly possible. I was thinking that it is helpful to have an idea of the goals you want to accomplish, which an agenda can help with. Also, keep in mind that over time, the number of participants in the process will change, so the issues and the agenda itself may change as well. > Tell me again, please, why sponsoring "a framework of > coordinated international meetings, to ... discuss the transition" > should emotionally involve anyone in the success or failure of the > (a) transitional *product of those meetings? I sense that many people are emotionally involved in these issues for a number of reasons. That would explain why they are frustrated when the product, or even process is not going in the way they hoped it would. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
Greg and all, Greg Skinner wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > > > Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion > > for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding, > > providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text- > > bound?) etc seemed more relevant to an analog (f2f) kind -- but isnt > > it just that kind of staging which *generates* the sense of urgency > > that asynchronous communication has happily dispensed with? > > Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by "digital meeting." > > I was thinking that providing a variety of tools for conferencing > would allow for a diversity of participation means. And a good idea this is ahd it has been offered before to the ICANN Interim Board, and was not availed by them. Curious, eh? > > > Asynchronous participation, like email or usenet news, is something > that doesn't require much setup (unless it's not available where you > are). That might make it seem less urgent. > > I think there is a preference among people to have face-to-face, or at > least telephone conferences because there are some things that are not > communicated very well in email and other text-based media. Tone of > voice and facial expression lend much to the communication process. Good points, and should be well taken. It is for this reason that Multicast and or Internet Video conferenceing can and should have been used at a minimum. But it seems that again the ICANN Interim Board, wishes to keep a low a profile as possible and limit to whatever extent it can to broader participation... > > > > In digital terms, however, how would one make this distinction of > > before and after? -- even if it was felt to be necessary? Isnt it > > conceivable that those who are 'working out' the agenda would be > > identically the same as those who will 'consider the issues > > beforehand'? > > This is certainly possible. I was thinking that it is helpful to have > an idea of the goals you want to accomplish, which an agenda can help > with. Also, keep in mind that over time, the number of participants > in the process will change, so the issues and the agenda itself may > change as well. > > > Tell me again, please, why sponsoring "a framework of > > coordinated international meetings, to ... discuss the transition" > > should emotionally involve anyone in the success or failure of the > > (a) transitional *product of those meetings? > > I sense that many people are emotionally involved in these issues for > a number of reasons. That would explain why they are frustrated when > the product, or even process is not going in the way they hoped it > would. Certainly true Gregbo! And much of the frustration could have been so easily eliminated had the ICANN Interim Board availed themselves of resources that were and are available to them. > > > --gregbo 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN
Greg Skinner wrote: > I think there is a preference among people to have face-to-face, or at > least telephone conferences because there are some things that are not > communicated very well in email and other text-based media. Tone of > voice and facial expression lend much to the communication process. > This is certainly true for some, but very expensive and limiting. I much prefer to discuss things on the list where everyone can have their say and things are more carefully thought out and expressed. I often think we should conduct all our business on the list and dispense with "representatives" all together. And, while some people prefer personal meetings because they have more control in such settings, I usually feel disadvantaged when someone else has the gavel.
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Kerry and all, Kerry Miller wrote: > Jeff, > > > 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). > > > > Os! You must have missed ours. > > I guess I did -- The Digest seems to be dropping quite a few items > recently. If you have a spare copy, I'd like to read it. I would but doing an all nighter here with my financial advisors at the moment, and really don't have the time. But it should be in the IFWP archives somewhere. On the whole though, I agree with you ideas and direction... Keep up the good work and be sure to cc the ICANN Board members. They need and should listen to your ideas... > > > > Greg, > > > > > 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? > > It may be worth clarifying that the RFC was not to *re*name > domains, but to extend the naming system. Existing domain > names would simply fall in the default 'ISO-8859-1' zero level > domain. > > Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the > same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names > are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than > that which they themselves 'read into' them) although it doesnt do > much for the internationalization aspect. (On second thought, it > might give Czech and Polish nets a real boost!) However, again, > its not a question of renaming; existing 'legible' names will simply > have to tough out the Trademark War (although some kind of > amnesty might be provided by aliasing certain characters, so that a > (possibly contested) mypizzahut registration would appear as > myp#zzahut for some transition period). *New names (and new > trademarks for that matter) are the problematic area, as I see it; > am I wrong? > > In any case, how is it so productive to debate who is going to > 'capture' decision-making power when the kinds of decisions to be > made are not at all apparent? Or is there an agenda-promulgation > nominating committee (and an APSO?) in the offing? > > kerry 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
RE: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Kerry - I'm sure there are a lot of people (including me) who would be quite happy to use the 'unintelligible' branch of the DNS for various purposes. The problem is not the lack of good ideas, it is the lack of a mechanism for implementing them. David Schutt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kerry Miller Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 6:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc. It may be worth clarifying that the RFC was not to *re*name domains, but to extend the naming system. Existing domain names would simply fall in the default 'ISO-8859-1' zero level domain. Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than that which they themselves 'read into' them) although it doesnt do much for the internationalization aspect. (On second thought, it might give Czech and Polish nets a real boost!) However, again, its not a question of renaming; existing 'legible' names will simply have to tough out the Trademark War (although some kind of amnesty might be provided by aliasing certain characters, so that a (possibly contested) mypizzahut registration would appear as myp#zzahut for some transition period). *New names (and new trademarks for that matter) are the problematic area, as I see it; am I wrong?
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the > same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names > are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than > that which they themselves 'read into' them) [...] Did you see the post from Andy Oram of O'Reilly and Associates on the domain name conflict? If not, I highly recommend it. It's at: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/andyo/ar/dns_trademark.html The report gives a synopsis of the events at hand, some historical background, and some perspective. I thought he did a very good job. This type of report can be a basis for educating people about domain names. It also doesn't require that extra levels of hierarchy be added to DNS, or that new registrations be restricted to character strings that are "non-conflicting". If you are as serious about education as you say, why not take some intiative yourself? There are people in ISOC, for example, who are interested in putting together some educational material on the Internet. Why not join forces with them? I'm sure they'd welcome the help. Or you could arrange to speak at one of the web conferences that are surely to be attended by people who have an interest in getting online, and would like to get some information on how to do so. Isn't this better than accusing people of being irresponsible? It seems that way to me. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Greg and all, Greg Skinner wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > > > Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the > > same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names > > are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than > > that which they themselves 'read into' them) [...] > > Did you see the post from Andy Oram of O'Reilly and Associates on the > domain name conflict? If not, I highly recommend it. It's at: > > http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/andyo/ar/dns_trademark.html > > The report gives a synopsis of the events at hand, some historical > background, and some perspective. I thought he did a very good job. > This type of report can be a basis for educating people about domain > names. It also doesn't require that extra levels of hierarchy be > added to DNS, or that new registrations be restricted to character > strings that are "non-conflicting". And it never has bee necessary if the Roots are opened up to unfettered and free enterprise as to allow for additional TLD's to be added. > > > If you are as serious about education as you say, why not take some > intiative yourself? There are people in ISOC, for example, who are > interested in putting together some educational material on the > Internet. Why not join forces with them? Depends on who those people in the ISOC are. If it is an ISOC sponsored educational program, you can bet it will be inaccurate and slanted towards a specific political and policy bent as has been the mantra of Don Heath for some time now. > I'm sure they'd welcome the > help. Don't be so sure. It has been offered before, but unless you pay their ( ISOC's ) $1000,00 entry fee they are not going to listen. > Or you could arrange to speak at one of the web conferences > that are surely to be attended by people who have an interest in > getting online, and would like to get some information on how to do > so. > > Isn't this better than accusing people of being irresponsible? It > seems that way to me. Sure it is. But it must also be done in an honest and straight forward manner as well. This is NOT something that the ISOC has been engaged in over the past several years. > > > --gregbo 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > As it happens, one can read my 'parodies' in just this light: What > prevents ICANN from tying registrar certification (say) to the > requirement that only 'unintelligble' names (say) will be registered > until such time as an *intelligible TM/DN policy is in place? Offhand: There might be some 'intelligible' names registered that no one would contest. Why should these names not be registerable? What is 'unintelligible' today might be 'intelligible' tomorrow. Why artificially constrain the namespace? There might *never* be an 'intelligible' TM/DN policy. It might forever be a subject of conflict and debate, as other issues at the intersection of technology and public policy are. Why make innocent people suffer indefinitely? > If such a policy is needed, what *conceptual flaws constrain > character-set identified ZLDs as its basis? How do we determine if such a policy is needed? For example, what happens if people *still* try to trademark octet sequences in the ZLDs? If that were the case, is it possible that the problem might lie elsewhere, besides the language that is used to specify domain names? Also, in response to David, I think your problem is that you wish to have direct edit control over the .com zone, at least with regards to your entry. That is a reasonable thing to ask for; I don't know how this figures into ICANN's plans. It's probably something you should ask them directly, or ask NSI under what conditions you could get this access. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
As I am not an ISOC member, my observations are based on my readings of the ISOC discussion group, which was recently made public. I will defer to Don Heath in case I have made an incorrect assumption. jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Skinner wrote: >> If you are as serious about education as you say, why not take some >> intiative yourself? There are people in ISOC, for example, who are >> interested in putting together some educational material on the >> Internet. Why not join forces with them? > Depends on who those people in the ISOC are. If it is an ISOC > sponsored educational program, you can bet it will be inaccurate and > slanted towards a specific political and policy bent as has been the > mantra of Don Heath for some time now. I think you should go to the discussion group and read what the people who've suggested an educational Internet program have to say. If it looks like you could collaborate, I think you should do so. >> I'm sure they'd welcome the help. > Don't be so sure. It has been offered before, but unless you pay their > ( ISOC's ) $1000,00 entry fee they are not going to listen. ISOC has individual memberships. It's much less than $1000. I don't remember the amount offhand. >> Isn't [educating people by speaking at a web conference] better >> than accusing people of being irresponsible? It seems that way to me. > Sure it is. But it must also be done in an honest and straight > forward manner as well. This is NOT something that the ISOC has > been engaged in over the past several years. As I said, contact the individuals who are proposing the work. Join them if you think you can work with them. Join ISOC if you think you can work within their structure. Or else join someone else's educational program whose agenda fits your agenda, or start your own. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Greg and all, Greg Skinner wrote: > As I am not an ISOC member, my observations are based on my readings > of the ISOC discussion group, which was recently made public. I will > defer to Don Heath in case I have made an incorrect assumption. > > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > >> If you are as serious about education as you say, why not take some > >> intiative yourself? There are people in ISOC, for example, who are > >> interested in putting together some educational material on the > >> Internet. Why not join forces with them? > > > Depends on who those people in the ISOC are. If it is an ISOC > > sponsored educational program, you can bet it will be inaccurate and > > slanted towards a specific political and policy bent as has been the > > mantra of Don Heath for some time now. > > I think you should go to the discussion group and read what the people > who've suggested an educational Internet program have to say. If it > looks like you could collaborate, I think you should do so. Where is this discussion group that you are eluding to? I will endeavor to give it the once over. > > > >> I'm sure they'd welcome the help. > > > Don't be so sure. It has been offered before, but unless you pay their > > ( ISOC's ) $1000,00 entry fee they are not going to listen. > > ISOC has individual memberships. It's much less than $1000. I don't > remember the amount offhand. Excuse me I meant to say $100.00. At any rate that is too high and basically unnecessary as well. I am already a stakeholder. Why should I pay twice, pray tell? > > > >> Isn't [educating people by speaking at a web conference] better > >> than accusing people of being irresponsible? It seems that way to me. > > > Sure it is. But it must also be done in an honest and straight > > forward manner as well. This is NOT something that the ISOC has > > been engaged in over the past several years. > > As I said, contact the individuals who are proposing the work. Join > them if you think you can work with them. Join ISOC if you think you > can work within their structure. Or else join someone else's > educational program whose agenda fits your agenda, or start your own. I don't need the education on DNS. I am more than happy to help others however. We already have several programs in place now through [INEGroup] as well as other groups. The IIIF fund has funded several, which I helped establish as well. If Don Heath has anything at all to do with this educational effort that you are mentioning, I don't want anything to do with it > > > --gregbo 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where is this discussion group that you are eluding to? I will > endeavor to give it the once over. Go to www.isoc.org and follow the links to 'NEW' ISOC-Members-Discuss. Then follow the instructions. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Greg and all, This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. It is available for members only to post there, al la the "Particpants" list of the DNSO.ORG fiasco. It is a complete sham! Hence my earlier comments apply on this thread. Greg Skinner wrote: > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Where is this discussion group that you are eluding to? I will > > endeavor to give it the once over. > > Go to www.isoc.org and follow the links to 'NEW' ISOC-Members-Discuss. > Then follow the instructions. > > --gregbo 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC discussion group mailing list: > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. Did I say it was? Recall my initial statements. I suggested that Kerry Miller contact members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in providing Internet education. I suggested KM join ISOC, if it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I think people who care about Internet education should read the list and judge for themselves if this is something they wish to participate in. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Jeffrey is just upset because he wasn't invited to play. On 12-Mar-99 Greg Skinner wrote: > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC > discussion group mailing list: > > > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. > > Did I say it was? > > Recall my initial statements. I suggested that Kerry Miller contact > members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in providing > Internet education. I suggested KM join ISOC, if it seemed like a > reasonable thing to do. > > I think people who care about Internet education should read the list > and judge for themselves if this is something they wish to participate > in. > > --gregbo -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 12-Mar-99 Time: 11:43:28 -- "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts." - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William X. Walsh" writes: > > Jeffrey is just upset because he wasn't invited to play. > > On 12-Mar-99 Greg Skinner wrote: > > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC > > discussion group mailing list: > > > > > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. Hmm, I'd love to sick him onto ISOC. We could even make a collection to pay for the membership fees, it is my understanding that not only natural persons are allowed in, so we should be able to get in a non exisiting one. el
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Greg and all, No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I also notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with most my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed membership only organization that properties to be representative of internet stakeholders, which of course it is not. The list to which you refer again to is NOT an open forum for internet education, hence in limited in value as an educational tool for present Internet users/stakeholders unless you wish to PAY AGAIN for what you are already paying for in the first place. Greg Skinner wrote: jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC discussion group mailing list: > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. Did I say it was? Recall my initial statements. I suggested that Kerry Miller contact members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in providing Internet education. I suggested KM join ISOC, if it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I think people who care about Internet education should read the list and judge for themselves if this is something they wish to participate in. --gregbo 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
William and all, As usual we see another ad hominan approach to a comment I have made taken FAR out of context and totally incorrect. Even if invited, I would not "Play" as little William's phrases his response here. There are many more and, no cost educational forums available for others whom wish or feel they need ongoing or additional education on these issues available on the net. Hence, what the ISOC is offering is a yet a seemingly, though weak attempt at being clever to draw in more members at $$ a pop under the guise of using educational services Forum.. Typical Don Heath ploy! Ho hum. William X. Walsh wrote: Jeffrey is just upset because he wasn't invited to play. On 12-Mar-99 Greg Skinner wrote: > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC > discussion group mailing list: > > > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. > > Did I say it was? > > Recall my initial statements. I suggested that Kerry Miller contact > members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in providing > Internet education. I suggested KM join ISOC, if it seemed like a > reasonable thing to do. > > I think people who care about Internet education should read the list > and judge for themselves if this is something they wish to participate > in. > > --gregbo -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 12-Mar-99 Time: 11:43:28 -- "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts." - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Kinda like INEG? Claims to represent the largest group of stakeholders ever assembled, but keeps a closed structure on information about what INEG really is (or isn't in this case). On 12-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote: > Greg and all, > >No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I also > notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with most > my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed > membership only organization that properties to be representative of > internet stakeholders, which of course it is not. The list to which you > refer again to is NOT an open forum for internet education, hence > in limited in value as an educational tool for present Internet > users/stakeholders unless you wish to PAY AGAIN for what you are > already paying for in the first place. > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC > > discussion group mailing list: > > > > > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. > > > > Did I say it was? > > > > Recall my initial statements. I suggested that Kerry Miller contact > > members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in providing > > Internet education. I suggested KM join ISOC, if it seemed like a > > reasonable thing to do. > > > > I think people who care about Internet education should read the list > > and judge for themselves if this is something they wish to participate > > in. > > > > --gregbo > > 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 > -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 12-Mar-99 Time: 13:15:48 -- "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts." - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I also
> notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with
> most my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed
> membership only organization that properties to be representative of
> internet stakeholders, which of course it is not. The list to which you
> refer again to is NOT an open forum for internet education, hence
> in limited in value as an educational tool for present Internet
> users/stakeholders unless you wish to PAY AGAIN for what you are
> already paying for in the first place.
Your comments are not relevant as my only purpose in mentioning the
ISOC list was to inform Kerry Miller of the existence of individuals
who are interested in Internet education. I trust that [s]he is
intelligent enough to decide if these individuals meet h{is,er}
goals.
--gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
William and all, William! Please take your medicine. You are beginning to have another of your mental lapsing periods yet again. It is both unseemly and detrimental to you to put on such displays of severe delirium William X. Walsh wrote: > Kinda like INEG? > > Claims to represent the largest group of stakeholders ever assembled, but keeps > a closed structure on information about what INEG really is (or isn't in this > case). > > On 12-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote: > > Greg and all, > > > >No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I also > > notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with most > > my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed > > membership only organization that properties to be representative of > > internet stakeholders, which of course it is not. The list to which you > > refer again to is NOT an open forum for internet education, hence > > in limited in value as an educational tool for present Internet > > users/stakeholders unless you wish to PAY AGAIN for what you are > > already paying for in the first place. > > > > Greg Skinner wrote: > > > > > jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, regarding the ISOC > > > discussion group mailing list: > > > > > > > This is NOT an open discussion group mailing list. > > > > > > Did I say it was? > > > > > > Recall my initial statements. I suggested that Kerry Miller contact > > > members of the ISOC who have expressed similar interests in providing > > > Internet education. I suggested KM join ISOC, if it seemed like a > > > reasonable thing to do. > > > > > > I think people who care about Internet education should read the list > > > and judge for themselves if this is something they wish to participate > > > in. > > > > > > --gregbo > > > > 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 > > > > -- > E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 12-Mar-99 > Time: 13:15:48 > -- > "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes > of lawyers, hungry as locusts." > - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977 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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No you didn't DIRECTLY say so, though you implied as much, I also
> > notice her that you carefully edited out those comments along with
> > most my two replies. Clever. None the less, the ISOC is a closed
> > membership only organization that properties to be representative of
> > internet stakeholders, which of course it is not. The list to which you
> > refer again to is NOT an open forum for internet education, hence
> > in limited in value as an educational tool for present Internet
> > users/stakeholders unless you wish to PAY AGAIN for what you are
> > already paying for in the first place.
>
> Your comments are not relevant as my only purpose in mentioning the
> ISOC list was to inform Kerry Miller of the existence of individuals
> who are interested in Internet education. I trust that [s]he is
> intelligent enough to decide if these individuals meet h{is,er}
> goals.
My comments are indeed relevent ( Above ) as to what eh real interest
of the ISOC is with respect to using Internet Education as a guise or
BAIT for attaining new members. It appears you missed that gist of
my post ( See above ).
>
>
> --gregbo
>
>
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
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My comments are indeed relevent ( Above ) as to what eh real interest
> of the ISOC is with respect to using Internet Education as a guise or
> BAIT for attaining new members. It appears you missed that gist of
> my post ( See above ).
I did not.
Your comments are irrelevant as my purpose was only to point Kerry in
the direction of people who state they have the same goal as [s]he
states. I will leave it up to h{im,er} to weigh the merits of ISOC's
membership criteria.
My posts in this thread concern only individuals within ISOC who've
stated Internet education as a goal.
--gregbo
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote: > "... our public belief in atomism legitimates the position of those > who argue that fixing the parts is sufficient as well as the > position of those who argue that fixing the parts has not been > effective in the past and that thus nothing can be done." -- Richard > B. Norgaard. _Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a > Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future_. London and NY: > Routledge, 1994, p 72 I don't believe that I have said that nothing can be done. For example: * I invited you to post your thoughts here (which you have) in order that they might get wider distribution. * I suggested that you contact members of the ISOC to discuss any mutual goals you might have in educating Internet users on domain names. * I told you that you should contact people in the Internet technical community if you wish to see fundamental changes in DNS protocols, such as allowance for non-ascii character sets. The only way in which my comments might seem to be atomistic is that I argued that substantial changes needed to be made slowly and carefully, and that in the meantime, the integrity of DNS must be preserved so the millions of people who rely on it can use it. This hardly seems atomistic to me. >> I believe in the very beginning, I told you that DNS was flawed from >> the standpoint of providing suitable representations of trademarked >> names. A more appropriate structure is a distributed directory. > my point is that without a sound principle by which to define > 'suitability,' the *logical outcome is rampant proliferation: I wont > make shoes, I'll make indoor-track recreational outerwear, in order > to have a 'non-confusing' domain name. In the end every site will be > its own TLD -- and you'll be back to trying to pull together a central > directory ;-) I do not know if there will ever be a way to make a network directory immune to forms of speculation. There can be abuses under even the strictest of regulatory policies. Ultimately, it falls upon the people who are engaging in the speculative practices to decide whether or not their actions are justified. > Now, if one must choose, does one go with the useful applications, > or with the critical matter? Doesnt 'utility' imply there are other > (albeit less useful) alternatives -- and 'critical,' that there is no > alternative? Then can't we say that *as long as an alternative mode > exists*, it is an expendable use? Of course there are alternatives. Opinions will differ on the suitability of alternatives. I disagree with the ones you've suggested. I wish you would just accept that so we could move on. > I see the same, and submit that what we see is atomistic > behaviour. To me, its symptomatic of a problem (and thus give it a > name), whereas you accept it as normative (and think naming it is > denigratory). All I said was that you shouldn't expect people to cooperate with you if you insult them. > I believe there are very few registered trademarks without vowels > *at present*. If ICANN sets a policy that new DNs will occupy this > territory by default, I'm confident that the relevant (and > distributed, btw) departments of commerce will take note of the fact > in considering whether a *future mark of this nature would be > 'confusing.' > Likewise, I think that creating 0LDs would also solve this problem -- > or rather, would lead to its solving itself -- as would the earlier > (2/24) idea of moving the entire system to a graphical standard > instead of relying on characters at all. Again, you are entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to disagree. > 'Taking into account' is not my favorite phrase; it has a rather one- > dimensional odour about it. Can we agree that the *whole of being > responsible is weighing *each issue appropriately *before making > changes? I feel I have weighed each issue appropriately. I gather you feel likewise. At this point I'm not sure what more there is to discuss. Like I told you a long time ago, if you really feel these ideas are good ideas, you should move ahead with them. > It might be an insult, I suppose, if one is sure the diagnosis is > faulty; but I wonder what your estimate of the *achievement of this > list since June 98, say, might be? A number of topics have been debated here, there have been quite a few flames, and there have also been significant distractions (imho). I have personally learned a lot from interaction with the list participants. Some (not all) of what has been discussed here is reflected in ICANN's bylaws. So I think there has been some progress. Perhaps more progress could be made if there was more cooperation. However, I don't think people are likely to cooperate if they feel they're being insulted. YMMV. >> Domain names have value. The reason they have value is because some >> people are willing to pay lots of money to get and keep them. [...] > I have referred to th
RE: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
On 12-Mar-99 Kerry Miller wrote: > But now we're on the verge of having 1LDs all over the place: has > Williams or Allisat or you or anyone else even suggested that they > would (let alone should) act to ensure that registrants in .per for > example really were individuals, either on registration or at any time > thereafter? What do such domains do to reduce confusion; that is, > to enhance domain namespace (or the net in general) for > communication? Zilch. I Fail to see why they should HAVE to ensure that registrants in per were really individuals. The registry is in the business of registering names, if someone or a company sees a value in having a name under that TLD, it is really thier concern, not the concern of the registry. But then, my views on chartered TLDs are well known. I think most implementations of them I have seen are flawed, or unneccesary. If anything they do nothing but strengthed the flawed view Trademark Interests already have over the whole domain name issue, by placing a set of rules over the use of a string of characters. Strings of characters will have numerous different meanings based on their context, and I have not seen a single person justify why we should advocate the limiting of options people and companies should have with regards to the use of these strings. I think that charter TLDs may be appriopriate in certain instances, but that each instance should be CAREFULLY examined, and they should occur only after it has been determined that there is truly a need to be met with regard to the area of the charter that unchartered namespace cannot meet, and that the string in question is not likely to have a practical use outside the scope of the charter. -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 12-Mar-99 Time: 16:55:34 -- "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts." - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
Re: [IFWP] Re: opinions & shortsightedness about ICANN, etc.
Kerry, I give up. You have made your points, and I have made mine. I have no further comments. Good luck. --gregbo
