Re: [ga] New wine in old bottles

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Would someone on this list please translate the message
down below into plain English?  Somebody has slept through
too many philosophy courses.

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> The same reason that the author of this post uses a startling incongruity
> in metaphors causes a fallacy of reasoning that is horrific.
>
> Why can't you change the word skin to bottles and maintain the logic of
> the thought?  The answer is the same for why this whole theory is
> fallacious.
>
> Anyone who claims as below that "Mr. Walsh's premise, his citations to
> ICANN documents are totally accurate" is three bobs off plumb.  How can a
> citation be accurate when it is used for complete derogatory and negative
> input.  As a lawyer Mr. attorney sir, you should know that the only
> accuracy of citations is directional and not persuasive. It simply is not
> a value judgment at all. Herein lies your philosophic problem. You
> sophistically take an is and transform it into a should.
> "his conclusions are exactly right." This is the most blatant abuse of
> language that I can fathom.  Right is a value judgment, exactly does not
> fit.
>
> What is my reason for going ballistic on such a poorly fermented
> amalgamate of babble contained within a sour wineskin post?  Because
> words and thought are just as important as connectivity and directional
> sincerity of our servers. (please note the transference of value to
> technical as displayed through the use of the word sincerity)
>
> As Ms. Lane later in this fine day falls prey to this liturgical* angst
> we must stay vigil in our constant avoidance of diametrically opposed
> urgings to do the right thing. Really all that is posed in this post is
> that this is difficult and that fact alone is irrelevant to the task at
> hand. The author here plays the inprudent sucker and becomes an elitist
> in his own right. Us dot commoners are ignoramous, at least by the test
> you set here. Get over it!
>
> I ask all to keep it simple stupid, do not follow the law of rationale
> but follow your conscience and what you know to be right.
>
> Thank you,
> Eric
>
> * I mean this as a customary repertoire of ideas, phrases, or
> observances.
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > William X. Walsh and I have been engaging in a debate over
> > what are the responsibilities of persons joining into this whole
> > ICANN process, and what are those of the long time participants
> > who are familiar with the process, the internet, the technology, etc.
> > Let me say for the record that given Mr. Walsh's premise, his
> > citations to the ICANN documents are totally accurate, his logic
> > is impeccable, and his conclusions are exactly right. I want to
> > respond more generally here, though, because this subject matter,
> > at least to me, happens to pinpoint a central reason why there is
> > and must be, profound decisions relating to the basic structure of
> > ICANN.
> >
> > The problem with Mr. Walsh's conclusions is that the Internet,
> > and the ICANN, to which those original ICANN documents
> > referred, no longer exist.  If one has a "technical coordinating
> > body" that sees to IP allocations and all of the rest of the work
> > that is fundamental even to having an Internet, of course one
> > must show some technical expertise and qualifications in order
> > to have a right to be heard.  One cannot carry out that kind of
> > work -- the work defined in the original ICANN "charter," if
> > every ignoramus on earth can jump in and spout utter nonsense
> > and thus effectively bring the real work to a halt.  However, that
> > was the old ICANN; this is the new, and the documents to
> > which Mr. Walsh refers have been bypassed by events.
> >
> > Commencing with the Network Solutions decision to stick its
> > nose into domain name issues -- NOT in the sense simply of
> > ensuring technical compatibility, etc., but as to who gets which
> > one, the Internet has been co-opted by the trademark and
> > commercial interests, and the fears of the original scientific
> > community which said that "commercialization" of the Internet
> > would corrupt its value have been realized many times over.
> > To everyday users, and registrants of domain names, it is not
> > necessary to know an IP from a DNS to have a right to speak
> > out on those kinds of issues.  The tradition within the technical
> > community, however, is to deprecate the "clueless newbie" and
> > try to chase that poor soul out of the process -- even while
> > others are trying to generate some real body of people (i.e.,
> > more than 305) so that a functioning system that could reach
> > a consensus on at least something could be shown.  Thus,
> > there is not just one ICANN, there are two, and they are both
> > incompatibly trying to follow the same set of rules.
> >
> > There thus seem to be three possible solutions:
> >
> > 1) Restructure ICANN
> >
> > 2) Start over with an entirely new organization
> >
> > 3) Re-direct ICANN back to its sole and only
> >     technical coordination function and form a
> >     second organization -- not an ICANN (since
> >     the function of this organization would not be
> >     about "assigned names and numbers" at all
> >     -- the function of such new organization to be
> >     that of addressing matters of international
> >     social policy that fill the pages of these lists
> >     and have nothing whatever to do with the
> >     original ICANN function. Read "The Internet
> >     Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
> >     I don't see anything in there about any UDRP
> >     or other such abominations, nor do I see, or
> >     have I ever seen, any document that gives either
> >     ICANN, the USG, or anyone else even the
> >     slightest legal basis for making up rules on the
> >     subject. International law (excluding the traditional
> >     (common law) has but two possible legitimate
> >     foundations: treaties, or     the consensus of
> >     individual people, and ICANN (and WIPO, etc.)
> >     have neither.
> >
> > I myself would suggest option 3.  Someone just
> > posted something which said that as a matter of
> > cold, hard fact, ICANN is the only body that has
> > even the slightest chance of gathering in the approval
> > of the entire international community to carry out the
> > technical function of running an internet, so while its
> > abolishment is simply out of the question, at the same
> > time it has shown itself utterly incapable of dealing
> > with social issues in a manner that will be acceptable,
> > and that is not likely to change. The opinion has been
> > expressed that we now have not an ICANN but an
> > ICANN/NSI-Verisign duopoly -- the capture has
> > been complete, and the $$$ will not allow the kind
> > of restructuring that ICANN would require. Power
> > is power, regardless of whether it has any legal basis.
> >
> > The issue of having a new organization and abolishing
> > ICANN was just answered.
> >
> > With no. 3, a first step would be to restructure ICANN
> > to get rid, if possible, of the "bottom-up" fiction.  In the
> > technical running of an internet, the policy SHOULD be
> > "We're the experts, we'll do it the way we decide it
> > should be done based upon our best judgments, and if
> > you are not prepared to contribute substantively to
> > the reaching of those judgments, based upon a real
> > understanding of the issues involved, go away." The
> > USG documents that call for "bottom-up" governance
> > should be re-negotiated, with that requirement removed.
> > (Or alternatively, ICANN could be seen as supporting
> > the development of an "Internet Policy" organization,
> > that runs on (roughly) democratic principles and allows
> > everyone with a concern to have a voice, thereby
> > actually fulfilling that mandate.)
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html