All,
Of course, we have yet another of those very thoughtful and
enlightening responses from you know who! >;)
William X. Walsh wrote:
> 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,
Regards,
--
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
