[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> "... 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 that I have said that nothing can be done. For
example:
* I invited you to post your thoughts here (which you have) in order
that they might get wider distribution.
* I suggested that you contact members of the ISOC to discuss any
mutual goals you might have in educating Internet users on domain
names.
* I told you that you should contact people in the Internet technical
community if you wish to see fundamental changes in DNS protocols,
such as allowance for non-ascii character sets.
The only way in which my comments might seem to be atomistic is that I
argued that substantial changes needed to be made slowly and
carefully, and that in the meantime, the integrity of DNS must be
preserved so the millions of people who rely on it can use it. This
hardly seems atomistic to me.
>> 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.
> 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 ;-)
I do not know if there will ever be a way to make a network directory
immune to forms of speculation. There can be abuses under even the
strictest of regulatory policies. Ultimately, it falls upon the
people who are engaging in the speculative practices to decide whether
or not their actions are justified.
> 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?
Of course there are alternatives. Opinions will differ on the
suitability of alternatives. I disagree with the ones you've
suggested. I wish you would just accept that so we could move on.
> 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).
All I said was that you shouldn't expect people to cooperate with you
if you insult them.
> 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.'
> 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.
Again, you are entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to
disagree.
> '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?
I feel I have weighed each issue appropriately. I gather you feel
likewise. At this point I'm not sure what more there is to discuss.
Like I told you a long time ago, if you really feel these ideas are
good ideas, you should move ahead with them.
> 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?
A number of topics have been debated here, there have been quite a few
flames, and there have also been significant distractions (imho). I
have personally learned a lot from interaction with the list
participants. Some (not all) of what has been discussed here is
reflected in ICANN's bylaws. So I think there has been some
progress. Perhaps more progress could be made if there was more
cooperation. However, I don't think people are likely to cooperate if
they feel they're being insulted. YMMV.
>> 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. [...]
> 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 don't think anyone disagrees with you.
> 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.'
I was trying to give a motivation for domain name buying and selling,
not a definition, per se. I wasn't even trying to justify this
practice. Simply put, it exists, as does the practice of buying and
selling Beanie Babies. I thought this point was clear from context.
> 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?
To some people, e.g. the ones who would profit from such a venture, I
suppose that is a responsible solution. I have no interest in such a
venture.
> 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').
I am about ready to give up. I don't want you to give me a complete
solution. I have, in all fairness and openness, pointed out areas
where your ideas have problems, in my opinion. But I have also
encouraged you to press on with your ideas if you feel they have
merit. I'm not sure what else to say.
> 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.
I think you should continue to try, but just realize that not everyone
will agree with you on everything.
> 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.
I believe I understood what you meant. I would encourage you to
contact the people who are engaging in domain name trade and try to
explain your point of view to them. Just be prepared to accept that
they might still want to engage in domain name trade.
--gregbo
