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 this nature would be
'confusing.' And even if (in their bureaucratic mindlessness) they
dont, is it likely the judiciary would renounce such an opportunity
to untangle what everyone agrees is an unholy mess? (Again, it
would in no way be an edict against intelligible names; but *policy*
has never been intended to protect each and every participant --
only to provide an adequate safe haven. If you want to have
PpizaHut.com for your ppiza business, you go right ahead; its a
free country; even ICANN wont change that, God willing.)
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. But since this simple level of
unintelligibilty does not preclude these alternatives in future, I
consider its impact to be the minimum. Besides, its easier to talk
about, as long as the problem is *conflict -- when we have
learnedto deal with that, we can go on to internationalization, and
then universalization of myth ('name') space.
> 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.
>
I deeply appreciate your years of experience in the trenches.
Indeed, that is precisely why I rely on you to evaluate the
*technical implications of the suggestions I make.
> IMHO, part of being responsible is taking lots of issues into account
> when proposing changes. YMMV.
'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? (OK, the 'hook' in this version is obviously 'appropriate',
but doesnt this go back to the matter of alternatives again? - the
more 'tolerance' a component has in its form or function, the less
weight need be given to it.)
> 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.
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? Are there fields of expertise not
represented here? Have issues been identified which no one here is
able to address? Am I missing something, or is it a collective
willingness to work together that is missing?
> 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.
> ... 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.
I have referred to the situation as a bubble; curiously, no one has
offered to rebut that. Is it an unspeakable concept? Do I violate
netiquette in using the term?
I have also suggested that commerce is not an adequate frame of
reference for social issues such as communication, specifically
*naming. 'Lots of money' is not in itself a definition of value; there
are other values to be 'taken into account.'
So what if one accepts your definition of value for a single DN?
Then the DNS (by definition a unique entity) has a very great value,
no? Doesnt it then follow that the *responsible solution to TM/DN
issues is to form a for-profit corporation, issue stock, and sell (or
[lease) the use of one of a pre-selected inventory of possible
names? Whats to be unhappy?
> 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.
Frankly, it still sounds like a bubble to me. As long as there is an
infinite supply of names, what's the worry eh? Register the entire
English language, and let the public learn Cyrillic if they want 'free'
speech, why not?
> 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.
We've been here before, I belileve ;-) In my (not so unique, I think)
language, 'proposal' is not the same as 'plan' (nor is 'outline' the
same as 'discussion'). Im interested in clarifying the problem; you
want me to hand you the answer on a plate (despite the fact that a
thousand people who understand the *technical issues much better
than I have not found such an answer in several years). Feedback
and support would be nice, Im sure, but not much use if we cant
even agree on this distinction.
> 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).
At the moment, my action consists of *refocillation: bringing
energy to bear on a point. What energy? The mental energy of the
*host of engineers, lawyers, businesspeople gathered here. What
point?
Put it this way: if you dont find one ad hoc, unconstitutional,
opaque and incompetent bunch serving your purposes, isnt the free-
market answer to form another one, with deliberation, openness,
and competency as your stock in trade? Here we have the ultimate
in openness, and a strong hand in competency; all that seems to
be missing is the deliberation.
Perhaps our concepts of education are different, too... Perhaps
nothing can be changed -- is it more responsible to accept that
there is nothing to be done, or to continue to try? It seems odd that
one could hold a belief in progress and accept a status quo at the
same time.
> > 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.
Im sorry you take my style to be sarcastic; I'm serious to a fault.
Is 'teach' the wrong word? It really didnt occur to me that you
might take it to mean 'speaking for oneself' or 'giving explanations'
or 'expecting' anything in response. Rather, I had in mind a
process of discerning what is missing from a learner's view, and
demonstrating that that view leads to a logical impossibility so that
said learner can see the contradiction for him or herself, and then,
when s/he begins to enquire how to make it more consistent,
offering materials and resources for hyr selection. Precisely
because ones self or ones expectations do not distort hyr
judgement, its then possible for many 'teachers' to work with many
'students' at the same time -- but it does rather depend on an old
fashioned collaborative concept of society, doesnt it?
Cheers
kerry
