Re: [IFWP] Re: Power Politics and the New Internet Order

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kerry and all,

Kerry Miller wrote:

> E Lisse elicited,
> > > 1.) REGISTRANT - Owns any and all information for any Domain
> > > whether registered in any TLD name space or not.
> >
> > And owns the the domain per se.
>
> I wonder if there is a domain per se...
>
> > > 2.) The REGISTRY- Owns the database for the management of
> > > information pertaining to all TLD's that are contained within that
> > > database.
> >
> > But you do realize that a database can be sold...
> >
>   I realize that sale is a right of ownership. But sale of 2 is not sale
> of the
> info contained in it, because that info belongs either to 1 or 3.

  This is not completely correct.  Re-read the definition of number 2 again,

and it becomes obvious as to why I am saying this if you think about it. >;)

>
>
> > > 3.) The REGISTRAR- Owns the information which relates to the
> > > registrar's information services in any TLD name space for which
> > > that registrar has permissions from a REGISTRY.
> >
> > My definition is different:
> >
> > 3.) The REGISTRAR: Owns nothing. Rips off 1.) and 2.)
>
> The idea is to prevent  polarization; it may be that either 1 or 2 can
> *perform the role* of 3, but by setting forth the concept of a
> 'middleman,' both can see that the line between them is a pretty
> nebulous thing.

  It is true that Definitions of 1 and 2 could potentially perform some
of the functions of 3, but it is not likely that 1 would do so or should
do so for obvious reasons.  However many of those functions of
3 could be automated to that point, and the need for 3 severely reduced.
(BTW, stay tuned, we are working on some of this level of automation
currently)  >;)


> A registrar operates on the registrants info in order
> to put it in the registry; since this operation involves other
> (informational) processes which are not *unique to either 1 or 2, its
> better to 'reify' it as 3.

  Right!!  At least presently.  However it is entirely possible for 1 to
operate as 3 in many cases and 3's role to be severely limited.

>
>     Admittedly, the lines between 1 and 3, and between 2 and 3, are
> also nebulous -- but now its easy to conceive a 'market' in 3s, so
> that in particular, if a given 1-3 line doesnt feel comfortable, one is
> free to take ones trade somewhere else.

  However 2 must be distinct... 2 and 3 functions could be combined,
but it is not advisable to do so for obvious reasons. 1 can at some point,
with easy to use automation from a web interface provided by 2, could
to a great degree supplant 3's existence.

>
>
> --------------
> The digital revolution is nothing if not the re-examination of every
> legal definition that ever walked the line. Ones intuitive sense that
> 'information 'about' an act is different from the act no longer serves
> when the act has the same form; i.e. is itself as digital as the info.
>
> Historically, definition has been a process of relating X to more
> 'fundamental' terms Y and Z, e.g.  a nursing home contracts to
> provide  "...such personal services as may be reasonably furnished
> for the health, safety, grooming and well-being of the Occupant,"
> because health, safety, etc are more 'obvious' concepts than
> 'nursing home.' That is, one does not expect to find Health, say,
> defined by 'what a nursing home provides,' but by metabolic rates,
> ability to resist or respond to ambient conditions, and so on.
>
> The digital dilemma is that there are no fundamental 'grounds' for
> preferentially relating one datum to another -- and yet it seems like
> there *should be.  The challenge then is not to try to 'discover'
> fundamentals where there are none, but to *agree to simulate the
> role of fundamentals* -- and history has shown time and again that
> a trichotomy ('this that and the other') saves a lot of hassle
> compared to a Manichaean ('take it or leave it') dichotomy.
>
> Since, in this sense, the DNS mess is no different in form than the
> censorship mess or the education/ propaganda mess, it seems
> worthwhile to take this conceptual approach seriously; otherwise
> some WIPO-style bureaucracy will end up with the whole schmear
> by default.
>
> kerry

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208