RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )

["Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO" <msportack@att.com>]

Milton, et al, 

Thanks for "welcoming" me to the Internet. An amusing, if not superficial,
gambit. I have been an Internet user for quite some time. For the record, I
am not a lawyer; I am a technologist. I have spent the better part of the
last two decades focused on data communications and networking technologies.
As such, I'm well aware of the Internet. I'm even aware of that old RFC that
defines acceptable levels of behavior for the Internet. "Netiquette", the
authors called it. I'd be delighted to forward a copy to you, so that you
may be properly welcomed to the Internet, rather than continuing to exploit
the false bravado that the anonymity of email affords. 

I wasn't offended by your mockery, nor have I been personally offended by
any other opinions proferred by other WG-C members. I'm not that sensitive
or insecure. I am, however, continually offended by the immaturity and
unprofessionalism that masquerade as debate in WG-C. I find myself
embarrassed for the people that inflict such missives on WG-C. Perhaps,
Milton, such behaviors are acceptable in an academic environment, although
ridicule certainly was not an acceptable debate tactic when I did my grad
work at Lehigh University. At Lehigh, we regarded such behaviors as tacit,
but public, admissions of ignorance. Anyone who couldn't contrive a lucid
response, and had to lean on ridicule or personal attack to rebut a
statement, certainly wasn't arguing from a position of strength. Nor were
they enhancing their reputation or credibility through such actions.
Consequently, I can't imagine Syracuse University condoning any of their
Associate Professors publicly  demonstrating such behaviors, particularly
when the University's name and email resources are being used. Regardless of
the culture or ethical standards of Syracuse University, I expect a slightly
higher standard to be adhered to in a forum such as WG-C. Might I suggest
you consider a more Socratic approach? I realize that such an approach might
not be as much fun, or generate quite as much immediate and/or egotistic
gratification, but it might actually help WG-C develop a consensus rather
than fuel its degenerating trajectory.

I respect the opinion, wisdom, and experiences of each and every member of
WG-C even though I might not always agree with everything that is posted to
WG-C. I regard the broad and rich array of talented people in this forum as
a potential source of extreme strength...if only we could transcend the
pettiness long enough to focus this substantial cumulative talent in a
positive and constructive manner. Thus, I persist in my belief that if we
focus on the issues, and refrain from ridiculing people via ludicrous
analogies or other tangential attacks, we can actually get something
accomplished. If we can't focus on issues, and fail to strive to comprehend
that which we do not initially grasp (as opposed to heaping on ridicule),
then we really can't ever hope to develop a meaningful consensus.

As to your, and other peoples' request for details of AT&T's anthropological
study; these are valid requests and well worth supporting. I will
investigate whether or not I can make those details public. I do not own the
data, I did not conduct the study: I'm not an anthropologist. Thus, I'm not
positive of the study's proprietary status, and cannot make any promises
that my employer won't permit me to keep. However, I will commit to
aggressively pursuing this avenue, and sharing what I can. "In short," I
don't mind you holding me to the same rigorous academic standard for
research that you maintain. In fact, I applaud your efforts to do so, as the
net effect will be a more informed debate. However, in return, I am holding
you to the same levels of professional etiquette that I adhere to, and
expect of all intelligent, educated, and mature beings. I'm confident that
you're capable of rising to this challenge.

In response, Milt, to your query regarding the volumes of SLDs and user
confusion, you (and others) raise valid points that merit further
explanation and discussion. I will be happy to mutually explore my
statements vis-a-vis your self-admitted ridiculous analogy with you,
publicly, on one condition: Conduct yourself in a manner that is
professional and courteous; appropriate within the context of a Working
Group; and most importantly, befitting the esteemed institution that employs
you. If you agree to this condition, then I believe we can actually have a
meaningful exchange of ideas using your bulleted list of items, and would
consent to holding that exchange in public. 

Mark Sportack

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Milton Mueller 
> Sent:	Monday, November 22, 1999 6:03 PM
> To:	Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO
> Cc:	wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject:	Re: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )
> 
> 
> 
> Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for initiating me in the time-honored tradition of WG-C
> 
> Welcome to the Internet.
> 
> > TLDNS.com cannot be regarded as credible evidence of
> > the pent-up demand for new TLDs.
> 
> TLDNS was not really an issue. If you want a more complete documentation
> of the
> pent-up demand for new TLDs, reference Position Paper B. Or ask the
> proprietors
> of .MD and .NU why they oppose new gTLDs.
> 
> > My second comment was to support the findings of IBM, by stating that
> AT&T
> > has conducted anthropological studies that demonstrate an increased
> level of
> > user confusion as the number of TLDs increases. The point of diminishing
> > returns is 3. Milton, if you would like a personal explanation of how
> this
> > is different from your bad analogy, please feel free to contact me
> directly.
> > I'd be happy to educate you.
> 
> And I'd be happy to return the favor. But let's do it in public, so that
> everyone is edified. Though I am sorry that you felt offended by my
> discussion
> of your study, the statement as it stands is still worthy of the ridicule
> that
> was heaped upon it. Here are some reasons:
>     * The number of TLDs now stands at 250. Are you proposing that we
> eliminate
> 240 of them? Did you inform the European Commission of this research when
> they
> requested a new TLD for .EU?
>     * An increased level of consumer confusion about what? Are they unable
> to
> tell you what the new TLDs designate? Are they unable to find sites? Or
> are you
> simply reasserting the time-honored cognitive fact that humans can only
> hold
> about 7 distinct items in their minds at once?
>     * What TLDs were used as examples in this study?
>     * How is this finding differentiated from the situation that confronts
> any
> ordinary consumer at the Barnes and Noble periodicals rack? At the
> breakfast
> cereal shelves in a supermarket?
>     * Have you conducted your test also on the number of SLDs?
> 
> In short, you're going to have to be a lot more specific about what you're
> talking about and how the results document real harm to the Internet or
> its
> users. I do research for a living. I'll hold you to the same standards I
> have to
> meet.
> 
> --MM