Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems
Karl Auerbach wrote: >"I have *always* held the position that there should be no >arbitrary, and particularly that there should be no >non-technical barriers, denying anyone the ability to go out >there into the domain name business, spend his/her money, >and make either a ton of money or loose his/her shirt. I >said it in my campaign platform back in 2000 - > http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#dnspol-tldpol Well, there had to be some reason as to why I did not vote for you... though I do agree with you on certain things there are others which I cannot accept at this time. >I live in that Wild West - it was pretty wild around here >(California in general and the Monterey bay in particular) >in 1846. And that wildness resulted in a pretty good place. The reason it resulted in a "pretty good place" is because at some point, a centralized authority stepped in and applied order and rules. The mining towns and cattle villes were quite lawless until the state and then federal governments started to apply laws by sending in marshals and, if necessary, the Army. The Internet's wild west days have come and gone. >But getting back to the point - People are not harmed by >choice. That would be a pretty hard statement to make at a drug rehab centre to a bunch of cocaine/crack addicts. But hey, they were free to choose right? Sometimes people *are* harmed, or more to the point, sometimes society as a whole is harmed. >By-the-way, DNS simply is not a taxonomic system. Period. The >fact >that it has been used by many to be one does not make >it one nor >does that use mean that it should be locked away >and that others >should be forbidden to try to make new uses >of DNS. Taxonomies effect a consistent, shared language used to organize unstructured information from multiple locations. Taxonomy is essentially systematization: a division into ordered groups or categories. I'd say the DNS qualifies as a taxonomic system in every sense because each and every suffix proposed to date qualifies as taxonomic by its very nature, including your .ewe. >Your argument sounds to me like one that said that telephone > wires, because they have been used to carry voice in the >past, can not be used to carry data/DSL because that would >confuse telephone users. Not at all. I am saying that the Internet (and dns in particular) are much more than simply a telephone exchange system and ought not to be treated or viewed as one. When language itself became a technology, we were no longer dealing with commodities like coal, oil, gas or electricity. Language, by its very nature is an ontological construct. When DNS was invented a whole new manner of interacting with technology was made available. The DNS is not simply a commercial affair, Karl, stop treating it as one. >And if those standards go beyond the simple technical ability >to run >a TLD according to internet standards then you are >imposing an >economic and social policy regime that amounts >to the making of a >law. And as a general matter, at least >here in the US, that's >something for the legislatures to do, >else it is simply restraint of >trade which may itself be >unlawful. Karl, we both know ICANN was never simply a technical oversight body, in fact, that's what the rest of the world is upset about and what the WSIS discussions were all about. We cannot turn back the clock and the USDOC doesn't appear to be inclined to do so either, I'm afraid. So, unless you plan to effect some change in USDOC policy vis a vis the Internet and ICANN, I suggest you join the rest of us in the present day realities of the situation. Sotiris Sotiropoulos Attachment:
smime.p7s
|