RE: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:29 AM
> 
> At 12:56 AM 4/17/2001, DPF wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:20:24 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >1) While extremely erudite, the paper is fundamentally just a legal

> >Why does the fact you find his research hard to understand 
> (dictionary
> >definition of abstruse) mean it is any less valid?

> By the way, when something is difficult to understand, it is 
> less likely that it can be validated.

This entire subject is highly abstract in both law and computer science,
dealing as it does, with meta-concepts of identity and location. As such, it
is difficult to understand by most people. Any paper dealing with this
subject directly (rather than "by analogy") will tend to appear "abstruse".
This is especially true if it wants to be rigorous.

WRT validation, mathmatical proofs are, by nature, abstruse, yet they can be
validated. Validation is nothing more than verifying that the reasoning is
consistent and correct. "Correct" being a term of art meaning that it
doesn't defy any rules of logic or acceptable levels of evidence regarding
completion of thought and thoroughness of investigation. As a thesis, Dr
Froomkin's work need not be further challenged on that front, as it has
already passed peer review, AFAIK.

Either challenge the paper directly, in its own context, or admit that you
don't know what you are talking about. The polemic that you bring here,
while worthy of you, is not worthy of this list, IMHO. It does not apply nor
is it correct.

> > >4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective
> > >observer, but he is not.
> >
> >Being objective is to be "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
> >prejudices".  I am not aware Michael has any commercial interests
> >which would lead to be not objective or that he has any personal
> >prejudices.
> 
> Prof. Froomkin's biases are clear and consistent.  He seeks 
> to criticize 
> ICANN.  He seeks to do it vigorously and at every turn.  His 
> motives might 
> be less clear, though the instant he starts getting public 
> exposure for his 
> efforts, then it is clear that he is serving to promote his career.

I thought that you just gave a great big lecture about how we should avoid
ad hominem comments. Yet, you dedicate and entire ad hominem paragraph, in
this post, not against what Dr. Frookin says, but his motivations. I guess
that you think it is okay for you to make ad hominem attacks, but not
everyone else (excepting maybe, your friends). Not only is that an unfair
double-standard, but it is also a Machiavellian means of trying to control
the discussion. You've just stepped off the moral high-ground that you
claimed so recently.

--
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