Kerry and all,
My Response is In-line
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Jeff,
> Following my own standards of polite discourse, I would have
> written you privately to point out the obvious: not just that your
> telling me what I already know is unnecessary, but that I made it
> as clear as I possibly could that I knew it and thus your
> belabouring the point does not further anything except your own
> agenda of belittling William Walsh
No intention from me in belittling William at all from me. Just
a warning and suggestion to you was my intent. I am sorry if you
were making that assumption. It certainly not intended. I thought
my last sentence would have cleared that point up. I guess
that I was mistaken. :(
>
>
> I would have done so, in order to enlist your help. It is possible to
> use this medium called language to communicate to more than
> just the person one is apparently replying to. Indeed, isnt it a
> fundamental principle of mailing list netiquette that one *avoids one-
> to-one exchanges? Sure, William was a convenient 'target' -- but so
> have many others been in their turn, and I havent seen you riding
> my coattails at those times.
Not riding anyone's coattails at all. Not my style, really.
>
>
> But one-to-many communication (if I can borrow the phrase back
> again from the technologists who seem to think that any exchange -
> - hell, any *sending of a message, never mind its receipt or
> response -- can be called communication) requires -- obviously, I
> should have thought, but obviousness is the topic here and now --
> *more than two people to participate.
OF course more than two people are participating, and hence my original
purpose response to you ON THE LIST.
>
>
> So never mind WXW; how do we involve *other people*? Why, we
> strike up a decent, respectable conversation between ourselves,
> and show that *who is participating is not as significant as what
> (and how) they are able to contribute.
Of course. How and what we contribute is of paramount importance
on any mailing list of this nature. And again, my point to you, and
the LIST was in that vain.
> I was going to invite you to
> 'collaborate'; to respond to the *content of my posts, just as if it
> didnt matter a damn to whom it was addressed. After all, under the
> guise of irony, I happen to have thrown out some *ideas. For
> instance, take my first para (tho you're free of course to pick
> another message),
>
> > > I think Mark is trying to say that the Net is not *only a
> > > market(enhancing) device in the same way as he is not *only a
> > > consumer. It may be that the choices he has available to make
> > > are provided by (and curtailed by) markets, in the same way
> > > that his terminology and references have been conditioned by
> > > marketing- enhancers -- and all of this not only 'has any
> > > relation' but is absolutely central to privacy policy, and net
> > > administration.
Kerry, I had already responded my thoughts to what Mark and
elaborated here. Essentially I agree with him to a point. I think
I made that pretty clear. If not, please just say so, or ask some
questions
as to the points I made to Mark in this comment (See above). I will
try to rephrase or restate in a different form where and what my thoughts
were and hopefully in that way clarify my meaning.
>
>
> I mentioned Mark only to maintain continuity; it doesnt matter, at
> least for this proposed strategy, whether *he was trying to say
> something or not; but it was obvious that he and William were not
> *communicating -- using a common language. I'm sure Mark can
> follow up his own line of thought in due course, but lets go on with
> my example:
>
> What do you think of the parallel I constructed between marketing
> 'choice' and marketing language? Do you agree with the proposition
> that how one thinks about something is influenced by the 'color' of
> the language; that is, the terms one thinks about it in?
Yes to a point I do. ANd I believe that I stated this to the list and
mark
in particular in my original response to him on his statement/concern.
> Do you
> think that there is any communication possible between one
> person who speaks of 'verifiable identity' and another who speaks of
> 'privacy' *even though they are really taking about the same thing to
> quite a large extent*?
I believe that you have to discuss in terms of cyberspace, what
"Verifiable
Identity" is. But that aside, yes.
> Does this idea strike you as relevant to
> ICANN, its putatively business-management style, and the fact that
> what it is setting out to 'govern' (however you would like to define
> that term) is a very lively global conversation (isnt that how the
> Supreme Court put it?), compared to which -- if one uses
> engineering measures such as megabytes and hops instead of
> dollars -- the 'free-marketing' component hardly registers at all?
I will take this large question in reverse order by it's parts as I
see them.
1.) The free market always matters and as such is a component that
matters to a great degree.
2.) ICANN plays both sides of the coin, so to speak. They want a certain
anoung\t of "Privacy" (Closed Board Meetings For instance), but yet
as it suits them, they also want to have "Verifiable Identity", as
they
define it, for membership purposes and purposes of registering a
Domain Name with any of their "Accredited" Registrars. In addition
I would add that they also want any and all information about those
individuals that register a DN with one of their "Accredited"
Registrars
to do with as they choose. That to me is hypocritical and frankly is
extralegal to boot. As both Hypocritical and extralegal, I find that
they
are knowingly not acting in the best interest of their charges.
>
>
> I suspect you do agree -- but that is altogether beside my point. I
> dont care if you disagree; in fact contention and disputation is a
> darn good way of getting a look at all the angles. (I admit, the
> hardest thing to grasp about this internet conversation is that *no
> one person needs to express *all the angles.) But what I want to
> know is why in hell you dont join the conversation instead of
> derailing it in snide and *redundant* sarcasm and bringing IFWP
> down to the level of private conversation?
I don't, I only point our idiosyncrasies that exist so that the readers
stay aware. I am sorry that you seem to feel otherwise.
> (Its not exactly the first
> time either, btw.) How is the membership -- the general assembly --
> of the list ever going to learn its democratic ABCs if it doesnt have
> an example to follow? (Everybody seems to be able only to follow
> the leader -- even if they deny with every breath thats what they
> want, and say 'answers' instead -- and even if one thing that is for
> sure clear is that there isnt any leader, nor -- doesnt it seem
> probable? answers either. )
Answers, we have plenty of. Leaders, real leaders these forums
are very scarce on. The ICANN and the DNSO are good examples
where good answers have been presented and seemingly broadly
excepted, as well a s method of determining whether they are excepted
or not is available, kindly presented by Joop see,
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/ . But Leaders, in the ICANN
and the DNSO we certainly do not have.
What we do have in place of leaders are some folks that want subjects
not followers. Good leadership engenders followers. Bad leadership
desires and demands subjects to be lorded over. The difference is
striking in attitude and deed, as we have already seen very graphically.
>
>
> God knows, Im no expert navigator, but I dont trudge off into the
> trackless swamp just because everybody else does; and if we can
> get enough people to start looking around to see which way they
> *might go, somebody just might find something they can do which
> will be useful for getting everybody out of this godalmighty endless
> bickering and posturing. (When in doubt, *explore*; that's the
> meaning of democracy according to de Tocqueville, who saw it a
> couple hundred years ago. - What wondrously technological
> progress we have made, eh?)
Technology and produced a whole new type of middle class that
did not exist in Tocqueville's time to the extent that it does today.
There inlies allot of the problem.
>
>
> That's the message I would have written, but rather than go through
> all this explanation ' backchannel' -- where you probably would have
> replied you understood all that already -- and leave both of us open
> to accusations of chicanery and manipulation and conspiracy when
> it became clear what we were doing, do you see why I leave it out
> here in full public view right from the start?
>
> I sure hope somebody does; I dont often manage to be this blunt!
Please continue to be blunt. It is so refreshing and in my mind anyway
much more honest.
>
>
> kerry
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
