Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

This doesn't make sense to me either:-

on 7/27/01 1:08 AM, Kent Crispin at kent@songbird.com wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>> A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
>> doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
> 
> Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart
> surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it".

The Protocol community is certainly a consideration, but not the only one,
and that's why it has 3 seats on the BoD, not 19.

> 
>> However, the
>> Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
>> or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
>> users.
> 
> Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
> doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.  If we
> got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
> bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.

We are forced to dump "universal agreements" all the time. It was not the
world that had to change from flat to round, but our perception of it.

> 
> The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
> science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.  And,
> despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really
> aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.

I doubt you understand stem cell research, but I would not deny you an
opinion and the right to be heard on the issue of making human body parts.

Technical innovation and social impact are inextricably linked.

Regards,
Joanna

<snip>
 

--
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