RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Dassa,
the whole confusion in the current analysis is a lack of analysis.
I see that you want absolutely to join the flock of the non-analysers who
want to propose an analyze. I am sorry for that: you shown you had
a good step by step approach of the legal issues. You could also
have had a good approach of the reality (the law is logic, the reality is
measurable) .

You will therefore continue to say, "let assume that I name private the
left third leg of the bird, I say that the public arm of the cow is to be
leading the tail policy of the hippo". And I will keep saying "let first
consider that a bird has two legs, the hippo no real tail and the cow no
arm". To what you will respond that I am generic and that in your
context you understand yourself. This is probably true, but I don't
and I am unable to use your points for both of us to go ahead...

As long as you want the whole to be part of a part of the part... you
will get yourself sometimes a problem. And I will not understand you.
Cheers,
Jefsey


PS. Your use of Public for legacy and Private for non-legacy is
debatable (depending on trade, history, etc... there are con and
pros we might discuss: I used them at a time) but confusing since
not descriptive enough and not widely accepted. Also it is quite
deceptive internationally as there is a gap on the matter between
liberal and socialist cultures where the words are not only differently
understood but used for different issues.

Frankly the best is to stick to people initial claims. The iCANN
always claimed that it got the legacy of its founder. I am not a
worsiper of Jon Postel and I accept that what I do not no part of its
legacy. This is clear. The Inclusive Name Space (the DNS Name
Space if you will) is thereofre easily split between legacy and non
legacy Name Space. I do not see where is your difficulty with
that?  I just tend to favor Inclusive as supportingthe idea that it
may include strings which are not part of the DNS yet.


Now when Lynn Stuart comes and talk about the stability of the
DNS, we are certainly near from the fall of the Empire... see my
mail on the matter.







On 11:49 17/04/01, Dassa said:
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
>|> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:39 PM
>|> To: ga@dnso.org
>|> Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
>|>
>|>
>|> Dear Dassa,
>|> your points would be better made and constructive would you
>|> consider the true nature of the things.
>|>
>|> - the name space is the entire spaceof names that the human being
>|>    may come with.
>
>Hello Jefsey
>
>That is a generic interpretation of the term "name space" in the
>context as used when referring to the legacy DNS and the so called
>alternative DNS (I have since decided that the terms alternative and
>inclusive do not actually apply in this situation and that the terms
>"public" for the legacy DNS and "private" for the so call inclusive
>name spaces are more appropriate) is not appropriate.  We are dealing
>with practical issues here, not abstract theory.  The legacy DNS is
>made up of interconnecting name spaces in a hierarchical structure.
>It was built using cooperative methods as evidenced by the RFC
>archives.  For those interested I suggest you read the following
>RFC's, 236, 247, 280, 606, 623, 625, 627, 675, 752, 756, 774, 791,
>799, 819, 830, 849, 881, 897 and 1591 for starters.  Then what ever
>takes your interest from there.  I haven't reviewed them all as yet
>myself.  The above however clearly evidence the cooperative efforts
>and agreements that were reached to build the legacy DNS as we know it
>today.
>
>|> - that name space is distributed in various ways such as:
>|>    - languages
>|>    - indivudual names
>|>    - trade marks
>|>    etc...
>|>    On the distribution is the DNS acceptable strings which use a
>|>    limited character set and a repartition in several
>|>    levels. Its name
>|>    should be "DNS name space", but the religion dispute between
>|>    some made it named "inclusive name space" when refering to
>|>    the whole of it and "legacy name space" when refering to the
>|>    portion of it directly managed by the iCANN.
>|>
>|> This is a mathematical analysis. You may want to change the
>|> wording but you cannot change that there is a whole, a part of
>|> that whole on technical criteria and a part of that sub-whole on
>|> operationnal criteria.
>
>It is not a mathematical analysis but an attempt to apply a
>theoretical definition to a practical real world example that doesn't
>fit the theory.  We are still seeing the development of standards for
>the application of alternative character sets to the DNS, trade marks
>do not currently impinge at the TLD's (which is the subject under
>discussion), trademark issues, individual name issues, copyright, IP
>property issues etc are all involved at the 2LD and higher levels.
>Although they are a part of the name space (which ever one you use),
>they are not applicable to this discussion.  My analysis defines the
>legacy name space as the public name space and all others as private
>name spaces.  Anyone can set up a private name space, the public name
>space is however, tightly controlled.
>
>|> I certainly accept that you may oppose to third parties to
>|> operate part of the Inclusive Name Space and want it to be
>|> exclusive to the iCANN. But to be understood and for your
>|> points to be debatable better for you not to make the whole
>|> a part of one its parts.
>
>I have no objections to anyone running their own private name space,
>either connected to the legacy DNS or totally independent.  But, I do
>not accept them as being binding on the public legacy name space.
>They are private name spaces, be it that the owners may sell or give
>away access to the services to members of the public.
>
>|> Also, you have mentionned that you understand that some
>|> may want to make money out of the Name Space, implying
>|> that non-legacy would target that. From experience this is
>|> mostly the other way around: legacy TLDs look at their
>|> bottom line (some time with big figures) while non-legacy TLDs
>|> mostly look at their individual DN owners' freedom and best
>|> interests.(when the ownership of the TLDs is notto the IDNHs
>|> themselves).
>
>I accept that the motives behind a great many of the private names
>spaces is not totally financial in nature and a great many are
>instigated and managed with high public ideals behind them.  I also
>accept that a number have been instigated due to frustration with the
>way the legacy name space is being managed.  A lot of others may
>follow, myself included.  However, I deny the right of such break away
>groups to force the legacy name space to take notice of the private
>name spaces.
>
>Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
>--
>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

--
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