At 01:20 AM 07/02/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote (in an interchange with Jay
Fenello):
>>SNIP
>
>We could. It might be a good thing. Sudden change. The busting up of
>conventional methods. Isn't that what the Internet's all about? But
>obviously we won't be allowed to. Does that mean we have to go to the other
>extreme and find some static uniformity, in order to be able to placate
>everyone? If that's what consensus means, I'm not sure I like it. It's
>anti-competitive. There have to be winners and losers, or there isn't fair
>play. With this institutionalization of the Internet, there will be
>rule-making, even if the rules are simply that no rules are to be made.
>
SNIP
>That doesn't seem to be a model. It's just double-talk, putting off the
>inevitable. Which is alright in itself, I suppose, since nothing much can be
>done about the situation for the moment anyway, except that no mechanisms
>for approaching the problem are there. I would have liked to see something a
>little more adventurous, like forced arbitration, or at least a committee to
>come up with some alternatives, some radical alternatives. If the DNSO
>becomes imbued with the prevailing sense of inactivity, it could be
>counter-productive. Innovation is still the way ahead, I hope.
Isn't the DNSO itself a form of "forced arbitration" - or " at least a
committee to
>come up with some alternatives, some radical alternatives"?
Esther
SNIP
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com
PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
