[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> 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.
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.
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. I
think most of the people on this list would agree that the DNS is not
a distributed directory. There are also people in the Internet
technical community working on various types of distributed
directories. Someday, perhaps, these directories will serve as
replacements for DNS, from the standpoint of providing companies and
other organizations with identifiers that they can use for whatever
purposes they see fit.
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.
> 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.
See above, with regards to distributed directories. 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. There has been some debate about the scalability
of DNS to tens of thousands of TLDs, and how to reduce (or eliminate)
root servers, but it is dwarfed by the other topics.
> 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 (again) is where we part company. We do have to work together,
and that includes you. 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.
Furthermore, some of us here are actually responsible for DNS software
and/or maintenance. We are responsible to the people who are using it
to access resources they want to reach on the Internet. Those people
rely on us to maintain DNS' integrity. This is why we must approach
substantial changes, such as additional higher levels of hierarchy,
with caution.
IMHO, part of being responsible is taking lots of issues into account
when proposing changes. YMMV.
> 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.)
It doesn't seem to me very likely that you are going to get people to
want to work together if you insult them by calling them
irresponsible.
> 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?
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. This is
no different than people being willing to pay lots of money for Joe
DiMaggio baseball cards, Beanie Babies, or pet rocks. There is no
technical or policy solution that is going to solve this problem,
ultimately. If there is a problem, it is that a domain name
(generally speaking) identifies a unique resource. True, it is not
the resource itself. But because it provides the means to access the
resource, it can be very valuable if the resource is valuable.
A byproduct of this issue is that some people have seen fit to
register lots of names in the hopes that they'll cash in on some
highly desirable name. They might not, but this still puts lots of
money into the hands of the registrars. So there is financial value
in registrars encouraging people to register lots of names. If the
registrars can position themselves so they assume no risk in the act
of registration, they can make big bucks.
> 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 think you would get more constructive feedback, and perhaps support,
if your proposals took into account some of the issues I have
discussed above.
> 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?
Many people on this list have tried to educate people. Opinions
differ on what is and is not relevant. At some point, you have to
decide on a course of action. Some will follow you, and others will
not. I think part of being responsible is accepting that which you
cannot change, etc. (as the old saying goes).
> 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*?
I can only speak for myself here as I try to give reasonable
explanations without being sarcastic or denigrating. I expect the
same in response.
--gregbo
