Kumquats
On Sat, 08 May 1999 16:58:13 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kerry and all,
>
> 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,
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> I remember very clearly many of your remarks on this subject area,
>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.
>
>>
>>
>> Calling 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.
>
> Completely agreed. However as we see unfolding and repeatedly
>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.
>
>>
>>
>> Here, 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.
>
> It seems to me that whether DN's are property has been fairly
>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 are
>> 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.
>
> I agree that we all SHOULD dig in as you say an learn 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 are
>> 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?)
>
> Good point indeed. As I and a few others have stated in conclusion
>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...
>
>>
>>
>> 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?)
>
> Well said and completely agreed.
>
>>
>>
>> =======
>> 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.
>
> This is so true. And it has been my feeling that commercial interests
>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'
>> 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.
>
> Well said and how true. ANd this seems to be the direction that again
>seems to be where ICANN is heading. Sort of the blind, leading the blind...
>
>>
>>
>> As 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.
>
> Agreed. But is as important to have what the consumer/individual
>decide what it wants in place to be put in place itself....
>
>> The
>> 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.
>
> Agreed, and something that the DOC/NTIA seems to be missing of late.
>
>>
>>
>> The 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?
>
> We can simply argue by saying NO, this is not what we want or will
>except and provide what it is that we do want, need, and desire.
>
>> Ah well, once 'education'
>> is fully integrated in the brave new market, there wont be any
>> infuriating kerrys and rondas to even raise the question. Pax
>> Economica.)
>
> THere will always be some need for Kerry's and Rhonda's in this
>brave new market. >;)
>
>>
>>
>>
>> kerry
>
>Regards,
