Re: [ga] New wine in old bottles

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Thank you, you made my point exactly!

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

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