Greg wrote:
> I have been using domain names, and hostnames before them, long before
> ICANN or any of these other so-called "governance bodies" appeared on
> the scene. I am using them for their intended purpose.
...
> I resent the notion that just because I am
> using (relatively) easy to understand names to access network
> resources, I am somehow being irresponsible or failing to understand
> some fundamental truth about domain names.
I'm quite sure that in your atomism you feel you act 100%
responsibly: you reach a desired *end A by *means of the
technical apparatus A' that applies, and Im happy for you. The
detail I persist in trying to introduce into this happy worldview is
that for the presently desired end B (e.g. a general principle of
reconciliation of trademark holders and domainname users), there
is not yet the technical apparatus B' to apply to it -- that is to say,
*how to build the apparatus B'* is now a problem C -- and evidently
neither you nor your technical colleagues have experience in
contriving methodologies C' out of thin air. Thus the 'pointless
bickering': for every suggestion of a C' (electorate, constituencies,
consensus) there is an objection that it doesnt solve *B* -- and for
every suggestion to solve B (such as ICANN) the objection is that it
is not a fitting C'! Its no wonder the discussions here go nowhere
but round in circles.
Im trying to say, the 'fundamental truth' is not about domain
names; they're only a symptom of the problem, which is 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 is not a matter of *judgement, but of
*results. When I see this much brainpower frizzing away in short
circuits, I suspect irresponsibility. (If you or anybody else wants to
rebut this by saying that no one has given IFWP a 'mandate' to act,
I will point out that 'nobody told us to respond' is the primary
rationalization of irresponsibility.)
So you resent discovering that the problem you feel competent to
solve is not the (first) problem that needs to be solved -- dont we
all? I'd say, 'get over it' except that telling people what to do is not
my style -- but maybe you can see what I mean. (N.B. Its not my
style for the simple reason that *it doesnt work* -- its not a solution
to a C-type problem -- as others on the list, if they think about it a
minute, can corroborate. I'm not arguing *against you, in other
words; Im arguing *with you.)
> 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?
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). Am I a computer tech? No (nor do I
pretend to be one), but I had hoped that the proposal might be able
to draw on a little expertise here. If the picture has technical flaws,
by all means lets fix it; if the 'problem' is simply that its approach
to the situation has not been thrashed from here to Sunday
already, is it the RFC that needs fixing, or the mindset of its
readers?
> I don't have any "theory of governance." I have been advocating
> technical, reasoned solutions all along. In the absence of such, I
> have been advocating compromise solutions that fit into established
> practice that impose only a minimum of impact on Internet users. When
> all else fails, I have stressed education -- going to the RFCs and
> other relevant sources for clarification.
Now theres something we can agree on, no problem -- except for
the priority. Shouldnt compromise rest on an assurance that the
stakeholders are educated to the issues? Shouldnt *technique be
the *implementation of the (minimal-impact) solution?
But that brings us back to the 'C problem' of techies having to
*explain* to the non-tech hoi polloi (aka users), which means they
would have to listen to the questions instead of just sneering at the
ignorant terminology (like calling an 'IP address' a 'host' for cryin
out loud).
Yes, education is at the bottom of it all, problem *and solution
together; and after all these years of retreat into compouterdom,
you (and your fellows) are on the spot: why not come on out now,
and *teach*?
Cheers,
kerry
