RE: Draft New Draft

[cgomes@internic.net]

Antony,

Well said.  I have felt for quite some time that one of the
biggest roadblocks to progress in DNS efforts has been the
attempt to fit everyone and every region into the same box.
It's okay and think even healthy to have different boxes to
suit different needs whether those needs are personal,
cultural, business or other.

Chuck Gomes

-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@interport.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 12:37 PM
To: Kent Crispin; DNS Policy; DNSO
Subject: RE: Draft New Draft


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
>