RE: Draft New Draft

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

Kent,

I couldn't agree with you more that a discussion on what Postel thought or
not would be entirely counterproductive, and beside the point as well.  And
you're right that our pea brains (or mine at least) are unlikely ever to
match his.

When you assert that "*Somebody* decides what the terms mean", however, we
must part ways, because I get the feeling you want it always to be the same
somebody -- or at least, only two somebodies -- ICANN or a national
government.

First of all, I don't see why anyone should impose a meaning on these terms
unless and until  there is a compelling reason (for instance, a conflict)
that somebody should.  (The fact that a couple of hundred people are trying
to form a DNSO, for instance, doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to
try to define "community" for everyone on the Internet.)  The meanings of
terms like "community" are shifting sands, implying one thing in one region,
referring to something else in another.  We should not attempt to prejudge
this or try to make a one-size-fits-all policy.  Most especially we should
not, in the frame of a debate that has been for years essentially confined
to gTLDs, try to shoehorn ccTLDs into a mold into which they do not fit.

Are the terms vague in RFC 1591?  Yes, they are.  I suspect that there were
reasons for that, and one of them may have been that it's dangerous to try
to fix meaning to a subject whose terms of reference vary so widely from
place to place and time to time.  As you said, "Personally, I think [Postel]
had a much more complex view of the Internet community than you realize."

Antony



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Kent Crispin
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 12:47 PM
> To: DNS Policy; DNSO
> Subject: Re: Draft New Draft
>
>
> 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
>