At 12:53 PM 10/14/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>Jay Fenello in the news:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/circuits/articles/14spin.html
>
>Is it relevant that someone is paid by an entity with a major
>financial stake in the issues?
Hi Kent,
Thanks for the publicity :-)
BTW, I'm not sure I understand your point.
I mean, doesn't Marilyn Cade get paid to
represent AT&T, or John Patrick, to represent
IBM? How about Jonathan Cohen, to represent
trademark interests for his firm?
Or how about all of those trade associations?
You know, like CIX, who seems to change positions
on a whim? Or like Jerry Berman's group, who
recently affiliated with the GIP, and nominated
Rick White?
And what about people like Tamar Frankle, now a
Berkman Fellow? And what about the Berkman center,
and their financial relationship with ICANN?
As I mentioned in the article, everyone earns a
living somehow, and there will always be a way
to claim that it influences their position.
This applies even to you!
Here's one from the archives:
>Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve)
>Subject: Re: State of Nature & the Regulation of TLDs
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>July 17, 1998
>
>TO: GIAW Attendees, ORSC Members, Geneva Meeting Attendees, and Singapore
>Meeting Attendees
>FROM: Stephen J. Page, Virtual Attendee, GIAW Self-governance process
>participant
>
>RE: Science-supported Law Governing the Internet in Response to Kent
>Crispin's "Regulation of TLDs"
>
>Kent Crispin wrote about regulation/control of human energy and words
>linked to a network database:
>
> >> Regulation of TLDs
> >>
> >>
> >>I believe it is possible to entirely avoid special governmental
> >>involvement to support TLD regulation, which means that no special
> >>edicts, treaties, or laws regarding nIANA should be necessary, in any
> >>country. More than that, I believe that eliminating government
> >>involvement is a positive good.
>
>Steve Page:
> What body of law will be used to bring order to the process? There
>must be at least one law governing the process, God's law, the law of
>physics, U.S. law (one nation's law), Kent's law (one person's law)...which
>one(s) will apply? One cannot assume that one can ignore humankind's body
>of knowledge and start from the beginning, trying to con everyone that this
>situation represents something new. It does not. Laws are the result of
>humankind's many-thousand-years-best effort to bring order to chaotic
>situations. True, they are an inexact method of bringing order because
>humans are not perfect. Since we all live within the world which is
>governed by the laws of science, where the speed of light is a fact, where
>gravity is a fact, where electrons flow freely, to be more exact in
>ordering ourselves, we would be best served as a collective group if we
>were to seek the positive aspect of harmonizing with the laws that exist,
>rather than seek to eliminate government.
>
>Kent:
> >>Karl Auerbach has expressed the view that we should design the
> >>organization as we would like it to be, then somehow get laws passed
> >>in the US that will implement the organization. My approach is
> >>diametrically opposed -- I believe we should take it as a fundamental
> >>requirement that the new organization *not* depend on any special
> >>laws, and design the organization accordingly. This is for two
> >>reasons: 1) special US legal status for nIANA would be a very hard
> >>sell in other countries; and 2) special legal status raises a number of
> >>serious complications, such as congressional cooperation and the quid
> >>pro quo that would result.
>
>Steve Page:
> Your diametrically opposed approach to Karl's suggestion, is
>therefore diametrically opposed to the concept of a consistent and lawful
>future. By specifically separating the new corporation from ANY law and
>building the structure based upon this "lawless principle", you ignore the
>reason for law...to help create order. It makes no sense Kent. You are
>trying to create order on the Internet, by specifically avoiding the need
>for law?
> You mention that law might be hard to sell to other countries. Is
>the law of gravity hard to sell to other countries? It sure was, but that
>was before people were educated. We seem to live in a time where people in
>power are not educated.
> The laws of physics ARE the laws that apply to the Internet, like
>it or not. (The law exists, the electrons and photons just obey it, and we
>are forced to live with it.) If you choose to ignore that, it would be
>ironic for a person who works at a U.S. government-fed multi-billion dollar
>scientific research laboratory, primarily in the area of Nuclear Physics.
>
>Kent:
> >>And, when it get's right down to it, I am convinced that special legal
> >>status is simply not necessary to get the desired results.
>
>Steve: What convinces you to oppose the reality of the law of physics?
>
>Kent:
> >>To start, here is a very simple conceptual model of the control
> >>relationships between domains. Everybody knows this stuff, I just
> >>want to be able to refer to it by name. I call it:
> >>
> >> The DNS "State of Nature" Theory of Regulation(*)
>
>Steve:
> You've chosen the wrong name Kent, but I recognize why you chose
>it. Nothing "Regulates" Nature and using the term "Regulation" in the same
>sentence as Nature is just plain false.
> Your professional life revolves around regulations, Dept of Energy
>(DOE) regulations (they pay for work to be done at Livermore Lab, where you
>work); Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) regulations which govern who
>can walk on the lab grounds, and who cannot; University of California
>regulations govern the management of the laboratory which works under
>contract to the DOE; Computational and/or Engineering Directorate which
>manages the work to be done by the engineers like you. It is THE most
>highly structured environment that I have seen in travelling to both
>Communist Countries (when I traveled there) as well as many other
>countries. Few things are more regulated than LLNL.
> Give it up Kent, what you view as being regulated or regulatable,
>is not. Does gravity regulate apples in trees?
>
>Kent:
> >> Control over a domain means you have control over the contents of
> >> that domain -- the "zone" file, in concrete terms. That is, the
> >> immediate subdomains of your domain exist at your whim, because you
> >> can add them to or delete them from your domain (zone file) whenever
> >> you want. Also, in addition to entries of your own, you can sell or
> >> rent entries in your zone file, and you are free to set contractual
> >> relationships with the individuals you sell or rent the subdomains
> >> to. [Note that this is a theory of regulatory control, not a theory
> >> of technical control.]
>
>Steve:
> Without protections that guarantee no "choke points" in the flow of
>energy across the Internet, anyone who manages a zone file has "control".
>However, if the protections are enacted (or recognized to exist from some
>higher authority which allows electrons to flow freely), then the manager
>of the zone file is the "servant" of the people who make the Internet
>valuable, the users who have the power to stop using the Net.
>
>Kent"
> >> You can define policies for these subdomains that your customers are
> >> obligated by contract to follow. You can even define policies that
> >> carry through to subdomains of subdomains, recursively. To a first
> >> approximation, it's your zone file, you can do what you want with
> >> it.
>
>Steve: By using the term "You", Kent, "one" actually walks down the
>slippery slope of simulating the regulator's point of view, which is
>clearly a role that you are comfortable with, in light of your personal
>experience.
>
>Kent:
> >> In turn, however, if your domain is a subdomain of some higher level
> >> domain, your domain name exists in that higher level zone file at
> >> the whim of the owner of *that* zone. And that entity gets to set
> >> policies for you that you must follow. In fact, that entity can set
> >> policies for you, and require you to maintain those policies
> >> recursively for all *your* subdomains, on pain of being removed
> >> from its zone.
>
>Steve: Your use of the term "higher level" shows that your mental model is
>a hierarchical model which, again is one that lends itself to "Regulation"
>from the TOP. The Internet is a flattener of hierarchies Kent. It is a
>physically a cooperative model, and the fact that individual users control
>what they see, when they see it, and where they view it, it is not subject
>to "Regulation" as you like to think of it. "Influence" replaces "power"
>in a cooperative setting like the Internet.
>
>Kent:
> >> In general, for policies to have any meaning there must be some
> >> policing mechanism -- controls that are not enforced don't really
> >> count. Every substantive policy, therefore, imposes an enforcement
> >> cost. All other things being equal, a recursive policy imposes
> >> higher enforcement costs -- potentially *much* higher enforcement
> >> cost.
>
>Steve:
> You are talking about law, while not using the word. Economics is
>the science of supply and demand which governs costs (and benefits).
>Economics as a science is subject to the same laws which govern the flow of
>electrons and photons across the Net.
> Your use of the term "policing mechanism" is Kent-speak for
>law-enforcement.
>
>Kent:
> >> At the simplest level, enforcement of policies is through the threat
> >> of removal of a domain from a zone. However, contracts
> >> ("registration agreements") may be involved that define the terms
> >> and conditions of membership in a zone, and they can have any
> >> conceivable clause that 1) the two parties are willing to agree to,
> >> and 2) that fit into the general legal constraints on contracts.
> >> But these contracts always have as an ultimate sanction removal from
> >> the zone, and thus modulate the "State of Nature" model, and don't
> >> entirely replace it.
>
>Steve: You speak of "threat" and "ultimate sanction". More
>Regulation-speak. Seek the "law" Kent, observe its role in the reality of
>the Net. Separate yourself from your work environment.
>
>Kent:
> >> A highest level zone is called a root zone (little "r"), and, in
> >> this "State of Nature" model, the owner of the root zone has total
> >> freedom to set any policies whatsoever on its subdomains, charge any
> >> prices it likes, require any business model it likes -- anything.
> >> The simple model of control inherent in DNS grants full power to the
> >> owner of the root zone.
>
>Steve: Keep going...
>
>Kent:
> >> Of course, there is nothing to prevent multiple root zones, and,
> >> while it would be a pointless philosophical exercise, a case could
> >> probably be made that multiple root zones are the "natural"
> >> consequence of a system based only on the "State of Nature" model.
>
>Steve: You are reaching for straws, but keep going...
>
>Kent:
> >>I have fancifully called this the "State of Nature" theory. It's
> >>fundamental control mechanism is the ability to add or delete
> >>subdomains. In the real world all sorts of other considerations
> >>enter in, especial at high levels, but this fundamental control
> >>mechanism remains of great importance, and it is one of the
> >>fundamental conceptual building blocks we need in thinking about how
> >>to manage things. Note that, by itself, it has no jurisdictional
> >>limits, though the entanglement in a legal system implied by the use
> >>of "registration agreements" will inevitably involve the notion of
> >>jurisdiction.
>
>Steve: Simplify Kent. You tangle "control mechanism" with "jurisdiction",
>yet you want to have no sense of law-based order? Kent, I am not following
>your logic. Maybe there's more...
>
>Kent:
> >>There is another fundamental conceptual building block to consider:
> >>
> >> The Single Root Zone, and the "Root Zone Condition"
> >>
> >> The goal of the Root zone (capital R) is a single unified name
> >> space for the Internet. To be more explicit, the goal is to be sure
> >> that every IP address reachable through the Internet backbone can
> >> also be uniquely named. By extension, the goal of the nIANA
> >> exercise is to provide a (capital "R") Root zone.
>
>Steve: IANA is the unifier...so far so good. IP addresses (ARIN) are
>linked to domain names (NSI and others) by IANA "R"oot. So far so good...
>
>Kent:
> >> This is an asymptotic goal, at best, and it is not a part of the
> >> "State of Nature" model. DNS is a general mechanism, and nowhere is
> >> it written in stone that a single connected name space must exist.
> >> Even more, the nature of DNS is such that an organization that
> >> wishes to set up a competing Root zone can do so. And "little r"
> >> local roots, with no pretentions of universality, are commonplace.
>
>Steve: A "root zone" is like a "language". Some people can speak English
>will find English language root zone files valuable. Others speaking
>Spanish will find Spanish ones useful. The point is...all represent spoken
>or written forms of "communications", which are regulated by the speakers
>who agree to speak one or another language with each other. Diversity in
>languages, cultures, sizes, shapes etc. is good, and should be balanced
>with the fundamental "unity" which IANA represents.
>
>Kent:
> >> On the other hand, the existence of a single Root zone is of
> >> fundamental importance to the Internet as a whole. Much of the
> >> economic power in the Internet is a function of convenient universal
> >> connectivity, and a universal name space is a necessary component of
> >> that convenience.
>
>Steve: Very true.
>
>Kent:
> >> The "single unified name space" goal has certain implications for
> >> the Root zone, such as: 1) It must be extremely reliable; 2) must be
> >> "trustworthy"; 3) must abide by widely accepted operational
> >> practices; 4) must be cost-effective. Any Root zone that
> >> substantially fails these goals will change to meet them, or be
> >> replaced.
>
>Steve: You ignore innovation, creativity, and improvements, which
>oftentimes, are not necessarily going to fit into your structured "must be"
>imperatives above. Oftentimes innovations are not immediately reliable,
>new ideas are not viewed as being "trustworthy" because of "Not invented
>here(NIH)" syndrome, new practices are viewed as being "radical" and
>therefore not accepted, and in the short term, innovations may not seem
>"cost effective". The bottom line: Kent, you are creating a box that you
>want the world to live within. The world doesn't work that way.
>
>Kent:
> >> But the most interesting and far-reaching implication of that goal is
> >> a bit subtle: a unified name space applies to the leaf nodes of the
> >> DNS tree, and there are many more of them than there are intervening
> >> nodes. Therefore, a promise of a unified name space is an implied
> >> contract with all the end-users of the DNS.
>
>Steve: It can be, and I would suggest making it a legal "cooperative"
>contract with all "i"ndividuals, or what you call end-users.
>
>Kent:
> >> That is, a Root zone operator that takes its task seriously, and
> >> likewise wishes to be taken seriously, must assume a responsibility
> >> to those end users, even though the end users have no direct contact
> >> with the Root zone operator. More succinctly, the Root Zone
> >> Operator cannot disenfranchise end-users of the DNS. I call this
> >> the "Root Zone Condition".
>
>Steve: What you call "Root Zone Condition" I call a service relationship to
>a "cooperative" of customers.
>
>
>Kent:
> >> In certain circumstances, the operator of the Root zone (nIANA)
> >> might even be subject to legal action brought by those end users.
> >> We can imagine, for example, a "class action" lawsuit brought by
> >> unhappy end users. [This is one thing that incorporation in the US
> >> gives us.]
>
>Steve: This service role of New IANA would be formalized as a Trust
>insuring the flow of electromagnetic energy served to "i"ndividuals
>coordinated through IANA, which I call THE i(r) CHANNEL(r) Trust.
>
>Kent:
> >> TLDs are, by definition, the only domains over which the Root zone
> >> has direct policy control, through the "State of Nature" model. It
> >> can, of course, impose recursive policies. But even non-recursive
> >> policies will greatly affect the character of the entire DNS
> >> structure under the Root zone. [One could argue, therefore, that
> >> the best way to decide these policies is to first decide what kind
> >> of domain name system you want to have, then decide the Root zone
> >> policies that implement that. Unfortunately, that reverse mapping
> >> is cryptographically secure...]
>
>Steve: If you stay away from jargon, it would be more understandable. The
>choices are two: an open system where energy flows, or one with "choke
>points". There is no in-between.
>
>Kent:
> >>Combining these two notions gives what I will call the "State of
> >>Nature theory of TLD management": The Root is a zone like any other
> >>zone; the TLD "owners" rent or otherwise aquire an entry in the Root
> >>zone, and manage their own zone files autocratically, modulated only
> >>by recursive policies established by the Root. These recursive
> >>policies, and any other policies, are enforced through Root level
> >>"registration agreements" -- contracts between the Root zone operator
> >>(nIANA, or an appropriate surrogate) and the owners of the TLD zones.(**)
>
>Steve: More jargon, more intellectual cloudiness, more opportunity to exert
>control. I think that you are talking about "contract law" needs to apply.
>I am not sure.
>
>Kent:
> >>However, the "State of Nature" enforcement mechanism (deletion from
> >>the zone) is simply unavailable to nIANA, because of the "Root Zone
> >>Condition". Concretely, nIANA cannot use the threat of removing a TLD
> >>from the Root Zone as a means of enforcing policy, because once a TLD
> >>is in the Root Zone, nIANA has a responsibility to the SLD owners in
> >>that TLD to maintain the connectivity of their name space to the
> >>Internet, regardless of what the TLD operator may do.
>
>Steve: Since the "Root Zone Condition" is really a service relationship to
>a Cooperative as I have shown, the "law enforcement model" that you use
>gives way to a "serve the customer" model. Threats and enforcement have no
>role in a multi-language "communications" system.
>
>Kent:
> >>So therefore, the only means of control available will be through the
> >>"registration agreement" contracts. But of course, these must
> >>relative to some particular legal jurisdiction.
>
>Steve: You are back to contract law, or "law". It is inescapable. So
>which one is it Kent?
>God? Physics (gravity, light, etc.)? National (U.S.? Albanian?), Kent's
>law? Other????
>
>Kent:
> >>As an example, this might require that all TLD "owners" must sign a
> >>contract, under US law, with nIANA. This would have the net effect of
> >>placing all TLDs under US jurisdiction. Of course, many people will
> >>be offended by such a development -- in fact it would present a giant
> >>political problem. But contracts must be written in *some*
> >>jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction *must* be convenient to nIANA.
>
>Steve: You have finally recognized a very basic fact...order stems from law.
>
>Kent:
> >>But regulating TLD registries through such contractual means has
> >>another problem -- in many ways a far more serious problem: as a
> regulatory
> >>mechanism it is terribly flawed.
>
>Steve: Avoid "Regulation", think law-based service and cooperation. Order
>flows from there.
>
>Kent:
> >>This can be illustrated through an example: imagine a TLD ".per",
> >>"owned" by a company in, let's say, Japan. The owner of .per signs
> >>the hypothetical US Root zone registration agreement, which
> >>includes the usual "equal access" clause for registrars.
>
>Steve:
> We live in a world which "exists" Kent. What is an "equal access"
>clause and how does this stem from the law (whichever you have chosen).
>
>Kent:
> >>The owner of .per, let's further imagine, manages to get a trademark
> >>for ".per". Things go on for a couple of years, .per does a good
> >>business, and makes a fair amount of money. Now, suppose the owner
> >>decides that it doesn't want to honor the equal access clause -- after
> >>a couple years operation it decides that it wishes to be its own
> >>registrar, and to deny access to other registrars.
>
>Steve: The problem lies in your "regulation", which I presume mandates this
>"equal access". Where does it all flow from, what "law"?
>
>Kent:
> >>What does nIANA do? A lawsuit in US court is the only option -- a
> >>painful, expensive, ugly process, but nIANA, pushed to the wall by the
> >>companies continued refusal to follow the registration agreement,
> >>finally sues.
>
>Steve: So it sounds like U.S. law applies.
>
>Kent:
> >>The company ignores the judgement, and continues registering names.
>
>Steve: Because they are in Japan? Is that right?
>
>Kent:
> >>What does nIANA do next? The company has the contact database with the
> >>billing information -- nIANA doesn't. The company owns intellectual
> >>property rights in the ".per" name -- nIANA doesn't. The company is
> >>located in a jurisdiction foreign to the contract jurisdiction, and is
> >>very difficult to pursue legally...
>
>Steve: The problem lies with the fact that the law which governs the
>Internet is a law of the universe (Physics), but we, as a group of humans
>did not understand the laws of science at the time when we began dividing
>up the world geographically into "controlled-chunks". The same laws of
>science in the universe (we all live there) apply, but we have conned
>ourselves historically into ignoring what really exists. There is only one
>law which governs this one thing, "Internet". Period. We need to deal
>with it. Period, exclamation point.
>
>Kent:
> >>I have cast this as a case concerning registrar-registry policies.
> >>But nIANA has little real leverage for any kind of enforcement through
> >>registration agreements, under this "State of Nature" TLD model. For
> >>example, a registry could refuse to pay fees to nIANA, or a registry
> >>could refuse to follow technical standards. In general, international
> >>lawsuits are an *extremely* inefficient and expensive way to enforce
> >>policies.
>
>Steve: The problem is with historical and uneducated thinking by
>control-oriented leaders. The Internet is not "controllable", because
>human beings are the energy that make it happen. Human beings are the
>creators of the electrons and photons that flow. Who controls those?
>Which country? Which jurisdiction? Let me know when you find the answer.
>
>Kent:
> >>This is a stark contrast to the case where nIANA owns the TLD name,
> >>has a current copy of the billing database in its possession(***), and
> >>has a set of *other* contractors already managing TLDs. In that case,
> >>if there is a problem with a contractor nIANA simply hands the data to
> >>one of the other contractors (the contracts would already be written to
> >>cover such cases), does a zone transfer, and changes the pointers in
> >>the root zone. At some later time, if capacity demands warrant it, nIANA
> >>will put out a bid for a new registry development contract.
>
>Steve: You are describing "command and control" of a closed system of
>communications, not an Internet. One problem has been in the imprecise
>naming used to describe different functions. If DARPANET (controlled by
>DoD) became NSFNET (controlled by NSF), changed the name to Internet (still
>controlled by NSF), which has been structured to be a free market for
>communicating, then the name of the Internet needs to be changed to
>something else, so that people understand that it is no longer controlled
>by the "U.S. Government" but by the collective actions and choices of "the
>"i"ndividual people". Any suggestions? My suggestion is "THE i
>CHANNEL(r)" a Information Cooperative for "i"ndividuals.
>
>Kent:
> >>These actions are enabled by nIANA having clear title to the TLD name
> >>and to the database. Without that clear title nIANA's ability to
> >>regulate the TLD space is hamstrung.
>
>Steve: As I proposed prior to the GIAW meeting in Reston, as a Virtual
>Attendee, IANA should be built upon a foundation of the formalized role of
>the laws of physics which govern the flow of electromagnetic energy through
>the Internet. The energy should be viewed as worthy of being protected by
>a Trust (like the Presidio of San Francisco Trust), called THE i(R)
>CHANNEL(r) Trust. New IANA's role should be to serve the formal
>cooperative of all Internet users through a web site called THE i(r).com,
>which is designed to serve "i"ndividuals.
>
>Kent:
> >>[Astute observers may note that the model I have presented here is not
> >>exactly the MoU model -- the MoU model parcels out functions
> >>differently, but IANA still remains the ultimate source of authority.]
> >>
> >>The example I gave is *not* an extreme case, something that couldn't
> >>possibly happen in practice. We need look no further than to NSI to
> >>see how the problem of unclear title to the TLDs and the associated
> >>database can be exploited to considerable advantage. In theory NSI is
> >>simply a contractor, and the upcoming termination of the contract
> >>should be no big deal. In practice, it has physical possession of the
> >>billing database, with open questions of legal ownership of that
> >>database. This gives it enormous, luxurious negotiating room.
>
>Steve: New IANA could represent the THE i(r) CHANNEL(r) Trust, and protect
>the database as one of the assets of the Trust. In that way, NSI would be
>a Trustee of the data, which is owned by the collective cooperation of all
>Internetworked "i"ndividuals.
>
>Kent:
> >>Imagine how much stronger NSI's position would be if it had a clear
> >>intellectual property claim to ".com".
> >>
> >>Then further imagine that NSI was headquartered in Japan; DOC/DOJ would be
> >>negotiating with a Japanese company.
> >>
> >>Then imagine that instead of DOC/DOJ the regulatory authority was a
> >>small non-profit corporation.
> >>
> >>This gives some idea of the difficulty nIANA would have in enforcing
> >>policy. These difficulties can be *greatly* diminished if nIANA has
> >>original ownership of the TLDs and the database.
>
>Steve: All the problems go away with a scientific law-based Trust. The
>existence of the law which governs the flow of energy is formalized. The
>ownership of the "energy" stems from the rightful source of ownership, the
>person who it uniquely represents, or was created by. The IANA serves the
>"Cooperative" of all users, regardless of location.
>
>Kent:
> >>To summarize:
> >>
> >>The problem of policy enforcement is real, and it is an extremely
> >>important problem for nIANA to solve. Partially because of the
> >>jurisdiction problem, contracts between a TLD-owner an nIANA are not a
> >>good way to solve it.
>
>Steve: By seeking the true "law" (physics) and transforming this relatively
>recent knowledge into "intellectual infrastructure" (understanding), these
>problems will be solved.
>
>Kent:
> >>Instead, nIANA must assert and retain original ownership of all TLDs
> >>in its zone, from the beginning. It must never delegate ownership of
> >>TLDs; it must only delegate operation of registries. Likewise, nIANA
> >>must also assert original ownership of the customer databases for the
> >>TLDs.
>
>Steve: The Internet is like a pipe. The energy flows like water. IANA's
>job is to insure that the flow is worldwide, always open, and that the
>energy flows for the benefit of the "producers and consumers" on each end.
>
>Kent:
> >>Finally, I note that 1) these conclusions could well be moderated
> >>after the development of a robust method of "chartering"
> >>special-purpose TLDs; and 2) the ccTLDs are a large special case.
>
>Steve: If someone chooses to regulate a small subset of energy, there will
>be those consumers who will want to consume them. The should be offered as
>a choice, no mandate.
>
>Kent:
> >>(*)"State of Nature" arguments are an old philosophical standard, most
> >>recently used (to my knowledge) in Robert Nozick's book "Anarch,
> >>State, and Utopia"...
>
>Steve: I am unfamiliar with this old philosophy standard.
>
>Kent:
> >>(**) I believe that the philosophical background to the "Root Server
> >>Confederation" groups is essentially that of "State of Nature TLD
> >>Management".
>
>Steve: Scientific-law, observable outcomes and results, support the Trust
>and Cooperative model which I have been supporting.
>
>Kent:
> >>(***) Through, for example, a contractual requirement that updates to
> >>the contact data be transmitted to nIANA on a daily basis. Failure to
> >>transmit the data would be grounds to give the TLD to another
> >>registry.
>
>Steve: Start at the beginning Kent, and everything else will flow
>naturally. The beginning is recognizing the power of the forces at work in
>the universe over the "design" of anything that moves electrons and photons
>around the planet.
> >>
>
>Stephen J. Page
>MBA OD BSc
>THE i(r) CHANNEL(r) Cooperative Information Service, www.THEi(r).com
>U.S. Data Highway Corp.
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>(c) Copyright, 1998. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved.
>This copyright notice serves to authenticate authorship.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
