Re: In Sum

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Wallace,

  Well you said a mouth full.  Let me see if I can digress below.

Wallace Koehler wrote:
> 
> Let me see if I have this right. The debate on this listserv boils down to
> three or four different groups, each of which has Right, God, and the
> Internet Way on its side. The other groups are all driven by greed or power
> lust.  The good guys each want to provide efficient service to the world,
> while the bad guys wish to either dominate Internet World or grab all the
> good domain names under any and all tlds or stake a claim to some chunk of
> domain-territory out there in cyberlandia.

  Some of what you say here is true, all be it highly inflamatory in 
nature.  You are guilty of what you accuse others of being.  Caught ya!
:)
Second, I don't really believe most on this committee are either good
guys or bad guys.  Your paranoia is showing a bit here.  The Internet is
made up of commercial and non-commercial entities, that is just a fact.
Neither should have a uper hand on the other.  So your assertion that
the "Bad guys" or commercial users are out to take it over.  Bill Gates
maybe, but not most.  It is not in their intrest in the long run to do
that.
> 
> I have seen charges and counter-charges of naivte, greed, stupidity, and all
> other perfidious motives. I have also seen a listserv dominated by a very
> small group of people all bent on being right. I'll be surprised if this
> makes it since most of my earlier "contributions" are still whirling about
> in cyber-no-where. Makes me wonder about "open debate." Perhaps I should
> have accused somebody of being a damned fool or commented on beard length
> (beard envy?).  That would have resulted in a posting.

  This is the pot calling the kettle black.  Straw man.
> 
> Now, let's sit down and reason together.
> 
> First given: the Internet-- particularly the WWW -- is/was a public good. It
> should be treated as such? OK, the Internet began as the child of the
> American defense establishment (public funds, right), later NSF (more public
> funds). The water shed came in 1995 with its privatization (private funds).
> 
> Therefore, let us debate if the Internet should be viewed as private
> property or public domain. If private, one set of conclusions follow. If
> public, a totally different set. Should the IAHC, InterNic, AlterNic,
> AnybodyNic, OldStNic, TheNic be empowered to set sweeping standards for
> tlds, server-level domain names, anything in between. Should the status quo
> prevail -- with three kingdoms?

  What three kingdoms?  This is new territory.  It is a shared resource
is how I see it.  No kingdoms really exist.  That is perception problem
that should be squashed.  Bad for everybody.
> 
> As I understand the debate (too kind a word) on THIS listserv: (1)
> TheISO3166 domains are out-of-it. But (2) the functional naming world should
> be splintered OR (3) highly centralized. Hmmm, can we learn anything from
> parallel systems. Has anybody bothered looking at development of other
> telecommunications and regulation in that arena.

  Yep!  Experianced it too.
> 
> Does anybody on this listserv really believe that the Internet can remain
> relatively unregulated? In any of the 3 kingdoms? Does Sen. Exon ring a bell?

  Yes it can.  But I doubt that it will.  People being people.  Yes
Sen. Exon does ring a bell, so what?  He is an elected official and can
be replaced.
> 
> Second given... There is a need for standardization of names. A portion of
> the ISO3166 Kingdom has carried the naming std to the second-level, applying
> functional terms (.com.xx, edu.xx, etc) and synonyms (.co.yy and .ac.yy)
> Some even add other sectors (.fi.cr = financial sector in Costra Rica). Now,
> I don't much care what the initials are, so long as there is
> standardization...the more the better. Are there parallels to this. You bet.
> Look at telephone numbers: first-country code, second- area or regional
> code, third - an exchange. Tells alot about where the phone is. Hey, what
> about postal codes.

  Wallace, here you make a very good point.  Standards are important and
must also be enforcable.  By whom, is the question.  And under what,
ever
changing set of rules.
> 
> I am somewhat amused by the .EARTH domain proposal. For the time being, I
> thought Earth was a given.
> 
> Phone numbers? Do we need mneumonics on the Internet? That gets us away from
> trademark infringement in a hurry if that's the big hangup.
> 
> Firstly and Finally -- this whole (hole) debate has at its roots
> philosophical questions (Yes, techies, moral and philospohical issues).
> Other than branding each other fools on this listserv, none of these
> concerns have been addressed. Resolve these issues first, the rest will follow.

  I tend to agree with you here.  If we as a group decide to really
work together, we can accomplish what ever is necessary.  Of that I 
have no doubt.  My doubt is can we work together?  Each of us should ask
ourselves that question frequently.  Political possitioning should be 
put asside.  Whatever loyalties you have towards your company or public
entity should be SECOND.  FIrst is the whole picture.  
> 
> A last note - I would unsubscribe, particularly in light of the flood of
> invective in the last three or four days. But, inanity has its place (ever
> gone to a UN debate? At least they're more or less polite to each other in
> public)

  Been there several times.  They are and have been a joke and a waste
of
MY money for a long time.  And that too is a shame!

Happy Hollidays!


> 
> Merry Christmas
> Wallace Koehler
> willing@usit.net
> *****************************************************
> Statistics are always true unless you personally know
> who made them up --Deepak Chopra*********************

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com