Kerry, thank you fro your thoughtful and very interesting response.
I read it several times with great interest! >;) Let me
see if I can
respond as well as you did here to your reply. (See below your
response
for my comments). BTW I am copying William X. Walsh in yet another
attempt to garner his attention to others that have thoughtful comments
and ideas to share that may be of some assistance in some small fashion
to which William denies occurs to any of my posts... PAY CLOSE
ATTENTION
WILLIAM..
Kerry Miller wrote:
Jeff,I remember very clearly many of your remarks on this subject area,
>
> Educating the consumer in a reasonable amount of time has always
> been a problematic undertaking in any area of endeavor. Hence it is
> not likely to occur in any meaningful manner. This is not to say that
> attempting to do so should not be attempted. The problem with "Doing
> So", is that so much misinformation and disinformation has already been
> disseminated out as gospel that the consumer will still end up confused,
> not to mention the Judicial branch of Government(s). This we have
> already seen clearly on these very lists, even today!!We have seen it, and it is a topic I raised here several months ago:
the Net *is educating the consumers, continuously. If its not
occurring in a 'meaningful manner,' then we need to get over what
we *used to think 'education' meant (i.e. some activity outside of
'real life') and buckle down to our responsiblity -- not shrug and say,
But the consumers think, or believe, or demand this or that as a
*result of their education.
regarding education and understanding, and how so much misinformation
and denial of information that is accurate is being decimated on these
lists. We indeed have seen it far too often, and to a great degree by
those that would deny that there are other ideas in process that are both
"Working Code", so to speak, and developing but in use concepts. This
sort of disinformation or misinformation from what I refer to as the
"Traditionalist" of the internet experience, seem to be locked in the past,
all be it a fairly recent past. But we are seeing in many areas of Internet
and other forms of related communication technology a convergence as well
as an ever expanding extension of Internet technology that these
"Traditionalist" seemingly tend to ignore or deny exists, even though it
is plainly right in front of their eyes. This is part of the learning curve that
we all face nearly every day and the "Traditionalist" seemingly have trouble
with, so dismiss it as invalid, not operationally sound, not in use at all,
or some other form of disinformation or misinformation.
Completely agreed. However as we see unfolding and repeatedlyCalling some of what's available Information, and some
Misinformation may be convenient in the old paradigm, but the
process is nothing more or less than what each of us deals with as
a living organism: some things look like food but arent, despite
their pretty labels.One learns -- and teaches -- by 'trial and error'
(and sometimes by retching on the floor), but one doesnt (usually)
resign from the human race for being confused.
suggested by individuals such as Dave Crocker, William Walsh,
Mike Roberts, et al, we find that resigning from the human race or
some part of it, such as this list is exactly what they would prefer
for those that are "Non-Traditionalist" to do, or face some sort of
denigration. They fail of course, as they that profess this
sort of denigration always in the end do. However when "Called"
to task a to their stated, directly or indirectly, desire along these lines
they take great exception. This causes confusion, which was the main
point of my first reply to your original post on this thread.
It seems to me that whether DN's are property has been fairlyHere, where we are all 'the internet' and 'the public' at the same
time; nobody knows whether names are property, for instance;
we're all confused whether rights of privacy can pertain to domain
registrants.
well established in the courts, however the final jury may not be out on
that question yet ins some peoples minds. There are forces, that find
this to be troubling for many reasons. Some are logically valid, some
of course are not. Given the current body of law on intellectual property,
of which I have posted in great detail in the past on this and other lists.
Since that time however several legal cases have been adjudicated
and the USPTO has created new TM as well a property classes that
are yet to be fully and more importantly, broadly understood, even by
some within the USPTO office itself. Hence we collectively have
an education process yet ahead of us in the tiny but significant area
alone. We are seeing with the DOJ case with microsoft, that some
forms of intellectual property, E-Mail, can be used as evidence, hence
the rules of evidence have been slightly but significantly enhanced. As such
we have sense seen a backlash from those individuals at Microsoft,
Sun, and even Netscape lead a charge that some forms of intellectual
property, E-Mail, should be considered private. Thus protecting themselves
from facing their own words and their consequences, good or bad..
Hence we have another learning process to consider... >;)
Of course, there are already some guesses, but we areI agree that we all SHOULD dig in as you say an learn collaboratively.
all babes in the woods. Sure, we can holler for Mommy to protect
us from ourselves (but she's at work...); alternatively, we dig in and
find out -- collaboratively.
This has not been the case form some that populate these lists and
is in glaring evidence coming from the self appointed leadership of
the ICANN in particular. May be they don't take the time or feel that
they do not have the time to do so. But the evidence is glaringly
obvious indeed.
Learning where or how deep to dig areGood point indeed. As I and a few others have stated in conclusion
trivial compared to learning to share the worms (the 'outcomes,' for
the metaphorically challenged). One supposes that in (RL)
kindergarten, we learned to get along; why should VR be suddenly
different *except that there is no headmaster to beat us into line*?
(What then did we really learn?)
to many of our posts, "a word to the wise should be sufficient". Often
to some, this is not the case. The zero sum game, as Stef has
often stated seems to be more the desire of a few to dictate to the many.
But as history has shown us this does not work in RL and will also not
be applicable in VR either, as we are dealing with Real People in
VR, after all...
Well said and completely agreed.In short, the *primary* function of global interconnectivity has to be
auto-didactics, 'home-schooling' in the widest sense -- and any
GoldenCalf (tm) that we cobble up and *call ICAmammy or
WIpapa ought not to subvert that priority, if its got the sense that
Joel Chandler Harris gave the Tarbaby. (Isnt the *felt need for
some such golem the strongest evidence that the *real need for
education is desperate? Isnt this what psychologists call
displacement?)
This is so true. And it has been my feeling that commercial interests=======
Commerce in general, and the rush to commercial application
online in particular, assumes that either ed is irrelevant, or it will
take care of itself -- at the same time it depends on its actually
occurring: a *completely ignorant person is not going to be buying
very much.
have not stepped up to the plate here very often or have simply stated
this or that is what the lesson plan is, instead of listening to what is
needed or wanted to be known and learned. I have always believed
that in commerce you learn from your customers, not teach them.
They will tell you what they want, need or desire, for the most part.
The customer will even tell you how they want that service or product
delivered and what choices they desire. If you as the provider (Business)
do not do so, someone else will, and you will loose some portion of
your customer base, and possibly permanently.
This kind of externalization of the social 'infrastructure'Well said and how true. ANd this seems to be the direction that again
simply doesnt make sense, and of course many businesses
recognize that -- but market imperatives prevent their doing much
about it until the general competition does something about it. The
consequence is that -- since there is no *market in educating
consumers to (in this case) the arbitrary nature of domain names --
we have the present scramble to claim everything in sight for trade
purposes, to standover innocent parties until their renounce any
claim to perfectly ordinary words (including their own names!), and
to push the resolution process into court processes that the hoi
polloi never dreamed might apply to their own doings -- in short, to
capitalize on (and thus to increase rather than reduce) the public
ignorance.
seems to be where ICANN is heading. Sort of the blind, leading the blind...
Agreed. But is as important to have what the consumer/individualAs it happens, of course, this is just exactly why civil government
was invented (on the 4th day ;-)) -- some things need to be in place
*before the market gets around ("adjusts") to them.
decide what it wants in place to be put in place itself....
TheAgreed, and something that the DOC/NTIA seems to be missing of late.
establishment of a currency is one (if Becky Burr has any sense at
all, she's working on the rules and regs for 'interoperability' of online
services) -- and the promulgation of a currency of ideas (aka
education) is the other that comes to mind.
We can simply argue by saying NO, this is not what we want or willThe democratic ideal is that these things can be instituted and
maintained by the citizens themselves. What we 'already see
clearly on these very lists' is that even these intuitively obvious
functions of a *public* are as good as lost. (Strip away the
meaningless language of 'representation' and the bones of the
ICANN structure are as autocratic as any other corporation -- or
monarchy -- but the 'top-down' hierarchy is so much more efficient
and easy to implement, who can argue?
except and provide what it is that we do want, need, and desire.
Ah well, once 'education'THere will always be some need for Kerry's and Rhonda's in this
is fully integrated in the brave new market, there wont be any
infuriating kerrys and rondas to even raise the question. Pax
Economica.)
brave new market. >;)
Regards,
kerry
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
