[ga-rules] RE: [ga-roots] Making Yourself Understood

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org On Behalf Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:53 AM
|> To: Darryl Lynch
|> Cc: [ga-roots]
|> Subject: [ga-roots] Making Yourself Understood

Not sure how applicable it is in this forum but as it has been suggested it
may be the most appropriate.


|> > So, the sharing of knowledge and clarification of text in this forum
is not
|> > a right but a courtesy extended to others.  It is something to be
|> > appreciated and give thanks for, it is not something to be demanded or
|> > criticised.
|>
|> This is correct but not the full story.  It is a fundamental
responsibility
|> of a person seeking to communicate with another to phrase the message in
a
|> way that can be understood.  Just can into a shop and say "Can I have a
|> <mumble> of <mumble>, please?".  You would not be surprised that the
|> shopkeeper misunderstands what you want to buy.

Clarity of communication is always something to strive for.  In a forum
such as the GA it must be assumed that a certain level of knowledge or
willingness to research is present, in other words the hearing aids are
turned on and the communications do not come across as <mumble> <mumble>.

|> On the other hand, people target their message at an expected audience.
The
|> financial newspapers will talk about "options being in the money" and
expect
|> the reader to know roughly what was meant.  As you say our target
audience
|> consists of people with DNS expertise.
|>
|> But even people with expertise have gaps in their knowledge -- areas
where
|> they are not at home with the subject matter.  I'll give you a simple
|> example and that is the concept of "service mark" in relation to
|> intellectual property.  I know what a Trade Mark is but what is a
"service
|> mark"?  Is that something only found in the United States.  I haven't
heard
|> of it in the UK and I'd be surprised if it is familiar to most
Australians
|> (like you and I).

True, there are often terms used that I am not familiar with.  I make a
point of finding out the meanings if it appears to have any bearing on the
discussion or is a point of confusion.   I think the main difference in our
positions is that I do not believe knowledge needs to be spoon fed to the
participants in the GA, if they are incapable of understanding the
communication or have no interest in doing the necessary research, I doubt
their contributions would be valid.

|> Certainly neither of us are lawyers (as far as I know).  We may or may
not
|> be programmers.  If a person onlist was given the acronym "IP" it is
equally
|> likely that their background would make them think "Intellectual
Property"
|> or "Internet Protocol".  Not necessarily both.

This is an acronym that can only be defined by the context it is used in.
Understanding the context comes from knowledge of the subject matter under
discussion.  If the knowledge is not there then research needs to be
carried out to gain the necessary knowledge.  There are a number of forums
devoted to such education needs, it may also be the GA would feel it
beneficial to develop a working group to address this issue and to provide
such a forum.  The GA itself is not the correct forum for this however.

|> The terms IPv8 and IPv16 are particularly specialised.  It is my view
that
|> people referencing such unfamiliar terms really do have a responsibility
to
|> make themselves understood at least to the general level of expertise
|> expected on a mailing list relating to domain policy.

I contend it is up to those who do not understand the technical, political
or social references to research and form their own conclusions on such
matters.  I am not familiar with the full workings of the US political
system, I would not expect GA members to educate me on this subject.  If
necessary I will educate myself.  The information is freely available.

|> Very few people have the ability to communicate clearly.  In  fact some
of
|> the disagreement on alt roots can be traced to a difference in
|> interpretation of terms like "name space".  This is why scientists and
|> similar professionals take care to define their terms.

Terminology and the use of definitions is often used to convey a different
meaning or impression than may otherwise be present.  In the case of alt
roots, they are currently attempting to develop a new terminology to define
their view of the situation as the current terms have overtones of
disapproval and conflict.  That does not necessarily mean the new
terminology will allow for clearer communications, it is a form of
propaganda and social science.  The definitions are being developed in the
hope their use will prove favourable to their view points.  More power to
them.  One of the reasons I suggest that a individual needs to do their own
research and form their own opinions and definitions.  All others,
especially as mentioned on the GA, may be loaded with bias.

|> The argument is then not about meaning but about the fundamental
underlying reality.

Reality is what we make of it.  There are various layers.  Only by doing
substantial research may any individual peel back the layers and find their
own truth.  In a forum such as the GA it is not possible to provide
mechanisms for those layers to be peeled back, relaying on that forum
alone.  It is necessary to delve deeply.  Any superficial application in
the GA will only serve to confuse and mislead.

|> I also think this topic ought to be discussed on GA-RULES.

As you wish although I'm not sure it is appropriate here either.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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