Re: [ga] Question No. 1
- To: "David G. Post" <Postd@erols.com>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Question No. 1
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:52:24 -0700
- CC: Roeland Meyer <email@example.com>, "'Eric Dierker'" <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>, "Babybows.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bret Fausett <email@example.com>, J J Teernstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <email@example.com>, Sotiropoulos <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "YJ Park (MINC)" <email@example.com>, "Michael F. McNulty" <mcnulty@AZStarnet.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, DJohnson@Wilmer.COM
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
David and all,
I tend also to agree with Roeland as well here, as do our members.
It would also seem fairly clear that the majority of stakeholders that
are participating do as well.
David G. Post wrote:
> Just fyi, I continue to think that Roeland's idea is an interesting
> one, and I've posted a brief comment at ICANNWatch about this issue, if
> anyone cares to comment.
> I wrote:
> >I think Roeland is right on target. The DNS is a kind of language --
> >it gives names to things. Coordination is very valuable in a language
> >-- if Roeland calls a round spherical object a 'ball,' and I call it a
> >'goidosphere,' we're going to have trouble understanding one
> >another. But we need imposed coordination of the ICANN variety about
> >as much as we need a Bureau of Definitions to tell us what words
> >mean. We had this fight 200 years ago; really smart and sensible
> >people actually argued that we needed things like the Academie
> >Francaise to 'authorize' particular labels for things, lest chaos
> >ensue. That argument lost,
> >decisively. See http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/DrakeTalk.pdf
> > Somehow we manage to agree to call it a 'ball', or not, quite
> >effectively without any single institution telling us we have to do that.
> At 12:00 PM 4/11/01 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >There is a serious disconnect here. When dealing with finite physical
> >resources, these distinctions make sense. OTOH, when dealing with abstract
> >resources these distinctions make absolutely no sense. I am sorry to see
> >that some have managed to rat-hole the discussion into "argument by
> >analogy". There are no definitive analogies that matter. We need to grasp
> >the concepts directly and deal with them ... directly.
> >The facts are that names are simply labels. I may label a spherical rubber
> >object a "ball" and you may label a square steel cube a "ball". Both are
> >equally valid within their context. A third-party would have to deal with
> >each of us, within our own context, and use the labels appropriately, when
> >discussing those things within the given context.
> >The fundimental problem here is that labels are not resources at all. They
> >are a meta-object, a means for organizing a universe of entities such that
> >we can distinguish one from another. They are a reusable tag. We can change
> >the object that we place the label on. We can also place the label on
> >another object ... at the same time. The problem here is that the contexts
> >that the labels are valid within ... can also be labeled, which is valid
> >within a meta-context. This is a recursive phenomenon. I submit that, the
> >only other place we have this problem is in object-oriented design and
> >analysis (OOD and OOA). Analogies don't work, for defining the problem,
> >there either. Further, OOD and OOA technologies weren't available when the
> >DNS system was designed.
> >This is the fundimental theoretical problem that the original designers of
> >the DNS system ran into. Thair answer was that, they drew the line in the
> >sand, at the root-zone level, and said "we'll stop here, for now". The line,
> >while occuring at a natural demarcation point, is still arbitrary. This
> >reduced the problem to managable proportions, such that they could build the
> >initial DNS system (the decendent of which is ISC BIND 8.2.3).
> >What we have here, as a direct result, is a system which is, intentionally,
> >context-limited. However, for labeling hosts on the Terabit project, it
> >worked. The problems we are dealing with today are a direct resultant of
> >applying the DNS system, out of its contextual referent, to problems that
> >really have their own context rules. Refering to my previous example, my
> >definition of "ball" differs from yours and unless we make an effort to
> >define the context of "ball" we will never understand each other. In the DNS
> >context, the label "ball" is a name space collision unless the relevant
> >context is defined. The key is that, understanding the context matters and
> >we'll never resolve this until we start dealing with context and
> >acknowleging that there are other contexts.
> >The practical application is that;
> >ICANN cannot ignore the contextual referents of the other root-zone
> >Trademark and IP interests cannot apply thier restrictions without also
> >understanding the contextual references.
> >The software needs to apply to a larger contextual scope than it has ever
> >had to heretofore (the MultiBIND project has been announced).
> >This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> >Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html