Karl Auerbach wrote,
>
>> There is no meaningful
>> opposite to a registry constituency.
>
>Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
>They are in direct opposition.
I wonder how we got to this class-warfare pass. RFC 1591 puts the function
of the registry as being one of "service to the community", which is
correct. People have poo-pooed my espousal of RFC 1591 in this regard as
being motherhood and apple pie, of course no-one disagrees with those
fine-sounding words, but in fact the whole project of identification of
constituencies has turned everything into a big rights game.
Anaximenes insisted that everything was air; then Pythagoras that everything
related to numbers; Democritus that everything was atoms. One result was
Democritus' rather shocking dictum:
"One must learn by this rule that Man is severed from reality"
Such solipsism has to be admitted as true if we don't recognize our
interrelatedness. We are in danger of atomizing ourselves into
free-floating self-referential little godheads. What a useless and boring
state of affairs.
Ying/yang sming/schmang. Quite apart from the fact that Buddhists recognize
this duality as ultimately quite false, it's a useless way to proceed. If
we don't recognize that everyone at the table has legitimate interests,
we'll never get beyond questioning first principles.
Antony
>
>And the business constituency is in contrast to all those users of the net
>who do so for non-business reasions -- education, churches, community
>groups, fun, etc.
>
>But all these opposing interests have been quietly eliminated from
>effective participation in the DNSO by relegating all of them to a single
>category in which they get but one vote against the combined weight of all
>the "recognized" constituencies.
>
>The creation of these constituencies is nothing less than a flat out
>contravention of the notions espoused in the white paper.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
