Chris wrote:
>I work in an office, not a cubicle :-)
>
>The "Huh" was in response to your posting. I have absolutely no clue
>at all what idea(s) you were trying to convey here.
>
>Can you explain it in English, and remove the (tm) and (r) and all that
>so that it's readable?
The ideas specifically relate to the absence of *a network
framework* for dispersing communications through channels which flow from
ICANN outward, through layers, as suggested by Jay, which would provide
something of a filtering effect, before flowing to/from the edges of the
network where people live, work and communicate in local email and
face-to-face.
Presently, ICANN has a closed list. ORSC has an open list.
DNSO.ORG has a closed list. There is no cyber-equivalent that recognizes
the regional aggregations of people which might be made which allow them to
organize and possibly get together locally (iLOCAL.com), regionally
(iREGIONAL.com), or even nationally (iNATIONAL.net).
Some people living in the U.S. might be interested in sending mail
and talking to others who might have similar interests, who would otherwise
never find each other. In this way, the ICANN's need for a two-way
communications channel is really representative of a larger need, for
people to make relationships with others with whom they have a connection
(like through ORSC), who might be nearby, or maybe not.
The Bay Area Internet Society is forming right now and they are
doing it by a combination of email and face-to-face dinner meetings.
Somehow that process got started, and it was facilitated by a group called
ISOC, and has slowly filtered down to the local level in the Bay Area.
Personally, I got together once with Roeland Meyer and it was nice to get
together in the area with someone who is on the lists, but there's no
structure out there for building realtionships. I was forced to do it by
hunting Roeland down. He's one of the few people identifiable from my
area. We are talking about building a social framework which allows people
to organize, meet and discuss, IF THEY CHOOSE. Nobody forces people to use
the Net. Nobody forces them to communicate with others.
A network of lists will stimulate the creation of information. The
paragraph below describes "information":
>From "Digital Certificates...":
"In Information Theory, information has nothing to do with knowledge or
meaning. In the context of Information Theory, information is simply that
which is transferred from a source to a destination, using a communication
channel. If, before transmission, the information is available at the
destination then the transfer is zero. Information received by a party is
that what the party does not expect -- as measured by the uncertainty of
the party as to what the message will be."
In the context of list usage, because people's intellectual
responses to others' newly created and dispersed information are
unpredictable. All of the "output" that is transferred from one responder
to an entire list is, by definition, information (or
potential information) depending upon what is known by the recipient can
stimulate new learning. This
information-theory-based fact makes each and every person who is able to
participate on any list, a potential source of valuable information to the
entire list, which can educate all of the list participants. Call if Viral
Education.
So, if one recognizes the importance of topically and
geographically organized lists to generate potential information from any
individual at the network edge, then the present situation of ICANN's lack
of participation in the open and transparent lists as representing one of
three possible situations.
First, ICANN Interim Board Members already know everything, which
has been clearly demonstrated to not be the case. Or, secondly, they
choose to only gather information from within their own sphere of contacts,
ignoring the legitimately recognized need of the "community" to participate
in the sharing of information, and the building of rough consensus.
Lastly, maybe they would like to gather information form the edges, but
don't know how. The truth seems to be some combination of the latter two
cases.
So, we the interested parties on this list have the opportunity to
implement a communications channel design method which recognizes the value
of individual Internet users to
create valuable information. To a degree, some of this is already
occurring on investment lists to drive up the value of certain stocks in
real time, or near real time.
Applying the same principles to bringing order to the process of
creating a globally applicable standard operation for managing names and
numbers for Internet usage, would seem to be a good use of our time.
Like building an "Investor Website" we can recognize that each and every
individual is an "investor" in the Internet. They invest their time, their
energy. Creating a list framework for their participation is an important
interim step toward bringing "rough consensus" into fruition. It's like we
have one door open, but there are potentially many doors that can be open
to stimulate people to communicate, exchange, and learn.
As Gordon Cook has stated, "From Parochial to Planetary(sm)" would
be a great promotional tag line for the decentralization of information
which would happen over time by a service
built from the multi-level list framework which I have provided to the list
for its consumption. I've already made a proposal to ORSC, I've made a
similar proposal to ICANN, and I've requested that the ITAA be one of the
chief sponsors of the framework. If this is not clear yet, let me know.
The idea is to generate trust by building participation. "Trust comes by
working with people over time."
>From "Digital Certificates...":
And, what would be this "real-world model of trust" for the Internet world?
Here, akin to Information Theory, trust has nothing to do with friendship,
acquaintances, employee-employer relationships, loyalty, clearance,
betrayal and other hard to define concepts. In the concept of Generalized
Certification Theory (see http://www.mcg.org.br/cie.htm), trust is simply
"that which is essential to a communication channel but which cannot be
transferred from a source to a destination using that channel". "
In the context of the definition of trust above, and using the
language of telecommunications, trust is an "essential facility" to
insuring that the Internet and commerce happens, period. "That which is
essential to a communication channel but which cannot be transferred from a
source to a destination using that channel". "
If it cannot be transferred, it is a critical part of the
infrastructure, of decentralized communications, and of planetary commerce.
So, how is it that ICANN does not have our trust, which is defined
as being an "essential facility" component (above)? The answer lies in its
transient nature, but also in its vacuous central authority, with no
channel inward, and little communications outward.
Informative comments are welcome to this information channel, which
is a service called THE i CHANNEL(r), providing decentralized multi-level
list filtering services at the atomic level of the Internet, "i"ndividuals.
As Greg suggested, I'll go to Simon's website and try to get an
idea of how it will fit.
Stephen J. Page
T: 925-454-8624
(c) Copyright, 1999. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved.
>
>--
>Christopher Ambler
>This email address belongs to a Resident of the State of Washington
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Christopher Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 3:44 PM
>Subject: A Slow Day at Microsoft? (was Re: [ifwp] Multi-level list
>filtering)
>
>
>>Chris,
>> Sorry to ask the obvious, but is "Huh?" a question, or a sound
>>coming from a bored worker in cubicle at Microsoft? For a sharp guy,
>>that's kind of an interesting response.
>> If it's a question, is it a question about David's post, about
>>Jay's post, or about the decentralized filtering of information from the
>>edge (you and I) to the center (ICANN) list idea?
>> Inquiring minds want to know. Just seeking a little clarity. :-)
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>>Huh?
>>>--
>>>Christopher Ambler
>>>This email address belongs to a Resident of the State of Washington
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 1:35 PM
>>>Subject: [ifwp] Multi-level list filtering
>>>
>>>
>>>>David,
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps a something like that idea with a more formal structure could
>work
>>>>to let more people feel comfortable participating. As an example -
>>>>
>>>>1) Fully open list - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>2) Lightly filtered version of same list - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> a) No crossposts accepted
>>>> b) Limited number of posts per day per subscriber
>>>>
>>>>3) Moderated version - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> There's an addition to Jay's proposal which is a communications
>>>>framework and I would like your opinion on how you would apply these
>>>>principles to the framework which I've developed. It applies the same
>>>>concepts of filtering, but breaks everyone into a linkable structure to
>the
>>>>unity which ICANN represents, below:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1 Multi-level "i"ndividual-centric Web-based Communications Framework
>>>>(THEi.com Communications Svc):
>>>>
>>>>2 Mass promotion through THEi(r)CHANNEL(r).com via TV
>>>>
>>>>3 DECISION-MAKING LEVEL (building trust built from OPEN LEVEL, below ):
>>>>
>>>>4 icann.org (building trust with "i"dividuals, TRUSTi(r).com promo
>service)
>>>>
>>>>5 i(r)BOARD.net (private list, email service to ICANN)
>>>>
>>>>6 i(r)COMMENT.com (open list email service)
>>>>
>>>>7 iana.org (open list input, private channel between IANA and
>ICANN)
>>>>
>>>>8 ADVISORY LEVEL (Representation, sponsored by ITAA? from OPEN LEVEL):
>>>>
>>>>9 i(r)NATIONAL(sm).net (representatives of nations, OPEN LEVEL)
>>>>
>>>>10 i(r)ASSEMBLY(sm).com (representatives of regions OPEN LEVEL)
>>>>
>>>>11 i(r)COUNCIL(sm).com (representatives communities OPEN
>LEVEL)
>>>>
>>>>12 OPEN LEVEL: (community-building by communications service provision)
>>>>
>>>>13 THEi(r)WORLD(sm).net (open communications service, anywhere)
>>>>
>>>>14 THEi(r)NEWS(sm).com (news feed service, anywhere)
>>>>
>>>>15 i(r)DIRECTORY(sm).net (organizing, locating, searching
>>>services)
>>>>
>>>>16 THEi(r)COMMUNITY(sm).com (community-building list services)
>>>>
>>>>17 i(r)REGIONAL(sm).com (psychographic communities)
>>>>
>>>>18 i(r)LOCAL(sm).com (town, city, county communications
>>>services)
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to your response. Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>>Steve Page
>>>>T: 925-454-8624
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>__________________________________________________
>>>>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>>>>blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>___END____________________________________________
>>>>
>>
>>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
