Re: "Global" (Re: [ga] Re: DNS/ICANN understanding)

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

To all.
I happen to see that a mail from Harald Alvestrand I received
was not a private but a public mail. For everyone to have
global vision of the discussion, I forward this mail to all
after having corrected some typos.



Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for the received URDP concerning "global.internet"
in form of a call to the order.

I understand that your request is in good faith and that you
react to the unbalance of a point because I made it only in
part, what you would have every reason to argue.

However, I fully understand you do not object my limitation
in the use of the word "global" but to the contrary to its usage
in the Internet field according to its full common, dictionary
and philosophical accept ion.

I will therefore obviously deny your request, but I do not
want to appear unfairly condescending or obtrusive. IMHO
your request creates what it want to fight. I feel fair to give
you more elements to correct your opinion. Forget me if
such a detailing may appear patronizing, it is certainly not
intended to.

 >>

Not using the proper word in its proper context because the
readers have not yet plainly realized its meaning would kill
any research or teaching effort, don't you think? With such
a non scientific approach there would be a Galilean mass
and an Einsteinian mass with two different words. I do not
think it would really help discussions, understanding and
development.

I will spend some time responding because I feel that most
if not all the issues discussed about Internet boil down to this:

-  the so called "technicians" (I deny anyone the right to tell
    I am not one of them) see the uniqueness of some technical
    solutions and infer that "global" means "entirety", and
    "extended" is some part of "value added".

-  the so called "lawyers", "politics" and "businesses" (I
    deny anyone to tell I am not one of them) see from the
    day to day life complexity and opportunities that there
    is much more.

IMHO all the problems we meet come from this qui pro quo.

1)  You use the word "global" in the same context as me.
      I started working on the concept in the network industry
      18 years ago. As explained earlier, I was even given "the
      global one" nickname because none at that time used or
      even heard the word!  I also coined the word "extended"
      in making it my title and my job definition: this gave me
      a lot of insights from top scientists, executives and
      politics from all over the world (you may guess that this
      was often the opening topic once the people read my
      business card).

2) From my constant experience, most of the people
     react like you, before realizing that the word "global"
     means in Telecom, Internet, etc.. the same thing
     as everywhere else, ie. "a group of elements
     considered in its entirety". They never thought there
     was therefore a difference between global and entire
     however one definition includes the other's concept.

     So, even if something is a unique piece, entire and
     global will differ because you may consider that thing
     in different ways. There will be no real difference if
     everyone consider it the same way. This is the way
     "technicians" like most probably you, consider the
     Internet: one system considered from the current IAB
     point of view. Like a Sergeant saying "I want to see
     only one head". In such a case the false sense is
     here but its impact is nil.

     Now, if something is made of various pieces "global"
     will practically differ from "entire" because it also includes
     the different perspectives you may have of the pieces
     and of their interrelations. In mathematics we would
     say that entire is all the elements, and "global" adds
     the rules applying to them. It is like having the Sergeant
     replaced by a coach: he will care about each one.

     "global" may result into something smaller than
     entire if some of the rules are negative. On the paper
     your team may count 25 players. But if one is sick,
     globally you will only have 24 on the field.

     It may also result into something larger: if you play
     home, the entire team will still be 24, but globally
     you may also count on the public.


3) I note that your definition of what you read from me is
    half appropriate.

     -  you include a deduction "'the whole content of a
        bundled service', *meaning that* the interpretation
        varies from user to user'.
        -  No: this it is not "meaning that", but "of which".
        -  we might also argue about "interpretation" which
           implies a deductive thinking process, while I use
           "vision" which may better correspond to an
           iterative thinking process. Also the a minima
           process is a view which can be considered as
           an immediate vision.

      - you do a counter sense unless you mean the
        "entire Internet" when you write "bundled service",
        what I doubt. Global *adds*, it does not removes.
        But it may add rules which de facto remove. If we
        have three figures: 1 2 3, the entire set has 3
        elements. Now we add rules towards a global
        vision and 2 is negative, globally I still have 3
        figures, but only 2 positive values. ie. globally
        a set of 2 if I need positive values, of 1 if want
        only negative values.

     Again, you think "global=public". This is your right.

     I observe that everybody says "global=public+...."
     and I try to analyze what this "+..." may be, so I
     may understand how to address, manage and may
     be develop this "+...".

4) I will end giving you a practical example showing
     that you are quite accustomed to these concepts.

     Let say you come and visit NY. You go first to the
     Empire State or to the WTC to get a general picture,
     but you will probably not visit both.

     Now, you want to build a map of NY: you need
     the entire picture. You will go to the Empire State
     and to the WTC and to the Bronx, etc... and you
     will take global pictures of NY.

     Then you will be able to triangle these global pictures
     considering the *entire* NY from several *different
     perspectives*. Each "global" view presents correctly
     the entire NY and the perspective conflicts. To make
     global and entire equivalent would be like taking X-ray
    picture.

     NB. Do not object that the pictures are general: it
     would mean they do not go into details. Being global
     the consider everything.

Summary

-  considering Internet as an unique piece what it is not
    by nature, except (?) when considering the inter-nets
    protocols and solutions from the only IAB - internally
    contested - point of view, you can in good faith
    stand your position however technically wrong.

-  I am sorry but dictionary, philosophy, technical
    analysis, common sense and history gives me the
    right to stand mine.

-  in the case of Internet, our common understanding of
    the problems would be quite simplified would we accept
    that Internet is a collection of interconnected networks,
    to be considered in their globality and not its entirety
    (or restricted to its publicly supported parts!).

    We are no gods imposing our point of view, but partners
    trying to obtain consensus.

    ICANN is on the paper the body of our consensa. In
    reality it is not? This does not change that having such
    a body is advisable.

Sincerely yours.
Jefsey Morfin
http://utel.net/jefsey.htm


At 07:34 25/08/00, you wrote:
>At 01:14 25/08/2000 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>Global is the same as public only when you have no intranet
>>and cannot afford or feel free to use/buy extended features in
>>addition or in replacement for public features.
>
>I do not find your definition of "global" compatible with the way I have 
>seen this word used in other Internet contexts.
>
>Your usage seems to equate "global" with"the whole content of a bundled 
>service", meaning that the interpretation varies from user to user.
>
>I don't think your usage of the word "global" enhances communication in 
>this context, and would appreciate it if you could use some other term for 
>the concept you want to describe.
>
>              Harald
>
>
>
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
>+47 41 44 29 94
>Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

--
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