[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] are there Internet Users or Internet Participants ?

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

Stephen and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  Now you are a fellow that knows what he is talking about
without all the political posturing.  Well done here Stephen!
(More comments below yours Stephen)
Stephen Waters wrote:

> On Thu, 2001-11-15 at 07:25, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > The Internet is the consensus of its participants to interconnect their
> > domains in using the TCP/IP protocol set under the IP addressing and naming
> > plans; the Internet governance is the common management of this consensus.
> > This is at least my reading of it.
> >
> > So there is no "Internet User": users are the users of the interconnected
> > domains and of the agreed services. Interconnected domains participate
> > (interconnect) in building the global system. This is a peer to peer
> > system. Until recently it was linking groups of physical machines (hence
> > the word "domain") and now more and more indeferently of physical machines,
> > virtual systems and people.
>
> Indeed, I often think of myself as supplying content to others (email,
> telnet access, conversation (IRC, instant messaging, etc.), website
> (complements of a free dynamic DNS service), etc.).

  Exactly!  And this is what defines a participant as a STAKEHOLDER.
It appears clear that the ALSC and long before the ALSC that the
ICAMM BoD and staff fail to comprehend this fact.

> It's wholesale
> dishonesty to imagine the Internet as push technology ala television.

  Good point.  But the technologies are merging.  Some are of the opinion
that the Internet will be used predominantly as push tech. FOR Television
CableTV, and SAT-TV or as a mass content source for same.  I don't
share that vision or opinion entirely.

>
>
> Even as labor is a product I sell to my employer, services I provide to
> others on the Net are also products that I produce. It just so happens
> that I don't think any of them are worth enough cash value to justify an
> attempt to sell them. :-)

  Also a good point.  But many small ecommerce businesses do believe
that their products and services are worth the attempt.  Many have been
proven wrong in the past two years as well.  Others have not.

>
>
> > from Telcos, IBM/DEC networks, etc...Vint, Alejandro, Karl may event no
> > really have a "meshed network" thinking due to the very old zone oriented
> > routing system.
>
> Karl knows what's up. Don't doubt him here.
>
> > Open Roots people are only more in advance, but by nature
> > they think "meshed network". The only one adapted - in part - to the
> > distributed architecture are New.net (and only in part). The problem is
> > that there is a complete cultural divide between these three thinkings:
> > star, meshed and distributed networks.
>
> Yes and no... I suspect the real problem is ISP unwillingness to drop in
> another line in their DNS configuration to use alternative roots or
> perhaps just ignorance of alternatives.

  Both are largely true.  That is of course changing as you know.  It shall
continue to change and at a more rapid rate.  The Internet is now forever
fragmented.  We had a chance in '99 with ICANN to prevent fragmentation,
and there was much discussion and debate in this regard.  However the than
seated ICANN BoD bowed it's neck.  Fragmentation began/excelerated
in earnest.  Too late to put that genie back in the box now.

> If some entrepreneuring
> alternative root convinced AOL to use their service in addition to ICANN
> and put up a few links on the homepage, other ISPs would shortly follow
> suit. After all, it's a simple way to tell your customers "hey, we just
> gave you access to another part of the Net, all for FREE!" or "we just
> made accessing all of the Net easier for you" or similar.

  Some of the "BIg Eight" ISP's have already done exactly this.  More
like AOL will follow.  Others will merge and also do the same as a
matter of survival.  Some more still, small or regional ISP's, will
have little choice but to do so.

>
>
> After google caches it, critical mass for alternative root support is
> only a matter of time.

  Exactly.  And that time is getting very close.  There have been three
new IPO's of late that are doing exactly this according to IPO.COM.
And two of them are well funded, similar to New.net.  Next will be
IP registries using IPv8 or IPv16.  And so it will go...

>
>
>
> > Domain Name :
> > s) an organized label that can be priced and resold
> > m) a service to the registrant which can be decided upon and freely rated
> > d) the name of someone's property - life long, non reellable, free, cost of
> > use charged.
> >
> > UDRP
> > s)  a centrally decided and pre-judicial promoted procedure
> > m) a complexity to avoid is possible
> > d)  the DNS users clarification of  an inappropriate mnemonic
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with your categorization here. You still have
> litigation possibilities no matter how you look at it...  but hopefully
> elimination of artificial scarcity for TLDs, SLDs, etc. would make
> litigation simply pointless except in a few specific instances.

  Agreed.

>
>
> e.g., Madonna should be able to get a name for
> http://madonna.whateverTLD, but if there are enough TLDs, it won't
> matter if Tom, Dick, and Harry all have madonna.TLD1, madonna.TLD2, etc.
> As long as the content on the site doesn't pretend to be *the* madonna
> site, it shouldn't matter. Chances are, google's pagerank is gonna pick
> out the right one anyway.
>
> but, if your domain name is a published haiku of a well-known author, I
> don't think you should be surprised if you get sued. :-)  so, best to
> change it up a bit into a parody or derivative, but original work!

  Exactly right.

>
>
> > The bylaws, the Staff system, etc are star oriented.  One has to understand
> > that no system is better than the other: they are just resulting from the
> > current social thinking and behavior and from the source code.
>
> I disagree. They each solve different problem sets based on different
> numbers of participants, different types of participants, different
> goals, etc. Thus, I think you have to use the best tool for the problem
> set. Which is, of course, the distributive model.

  Also agreed here as well.  ICANN could have accomplished this
if it had embraced this early on as we [INEGroup] suggested, and
are doing ourselves.  The again than seated ICANN BoD also
decided not to do so, and still has not despite a consensus for
them to do so.  Ergo the legitimacy problem that still hovers
over the ICANN now.

>
>
> If you disagree and want to say it's because we each view the problem
> set differently, then I would agree, but with the caveat that a
> non-distributive perspective on the Internet is not the Internet. The
> perspective simply lacks the proper data or intelligence to come to the
> proper conclusion.

  That's correct.  And until or unless the ICANN BoD and staff does
understand this very basic perspective and embraces it fully, it shall
remain illegitimate.  To accomplish this now will require the any and
all willing stakeholders/participants/users to be voting members.


>
> All in all, good work Jefsey,
> -s
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: application/pgp-signature

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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