Re: Draft New Draft

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 11:34:47AM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote,
> 
> > >
> > > Sure, RFC 1591 agrees with you here (NOT):
> > >
> > >       Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
> > >       inappropriate.  It is appropriate to be concerned about
> > >       "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.
> >
> > Sure.  The government in question defines what those terms mean.  It
> > also defines the community.
> >
> 
> Kent, I can't believe you've written this.  You said that the IATLD was just
> "interpreting" RFC 1591, that when you read it, you found it to be entirely
> consistent with a "pro-sovereignty" interpretation.   Now I can see why:
> you've set up a closed system, where every term means whatever a government
> wants it to mean.

You apparently believe that it is ICANN that gets to decide what
these terms mean, or maybe that the registry involved gets to decide
what the terms mean, or maybe even that you personally get to decide?

*Somebody* decides what the terms mean.  "Rights", "ownership",
"responsibilities" and "service" and "community" are all *very*
general terms. 

In fact, from a policy point of view the paragraph is essentially
meaningless: literally, it says that certain "concerns" are
inappropriate.  But "concerns" are, strictly speaking, purely
subjective things -- and therefore, the actual, litereal meaning of
the paragraph is that it is inappropriate to think certain vaguely
defined thoughts, and it is appropriate to think other vaguely
defined thoughts. 

It's likely that your urge at this point is to launch into a
discussion about what Jon Postel actually meant with this language, 
just as you did below.

But of course, that is just more interpretation.

This is a fundamental problem with rfc1591 as a policy document.  
Spin as you like, it simply does not answer the question you claim
it does.

> Ergo, "Internet community" is whatever the government defines it to be.  So
> why are we all wasting our time?  Why spend hours and hours worrying about
> fairness and process.  Why don't we just ask the Commerce Department to do
> all of this for us?
> 
> Kent, I think you're just dead wrong about this.  Governments don't define
> what a community is, least of all the Internet community as Jon Postel used
> it.

You miss the point, Antony.  It's not who in particular defines the
term, it's that somebody has to define it.  It's not in the document
itself.

And, though I revere and respect and miss Jon Postel, referring to
him adds nothing to your argument.  Personally, I think he had a much
more complex view of the Internet community than you realize. 


-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain