[governance] RE: GeoTLD

[Avri Doria]

On 27 Dec 2007, at 14:16, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> With the authority  St Aquinas brought in as a bolstering argument.
>
> I've always found it amusing to cite a Saint,an authority, as an  
> authority to make an argument, based on an assertion of authority,  
> why arguments that are assertions of authority are weak arguments.

Yeah i thought that was clever especially since, at least  
periodically, he was one of the foremost authorities for an  
authoritarian religion.  especially since 1914 with the 24  
propositions.  if i remember correctly they left the on about arguing  
from authority out of the list.

>
>
>> Note: even the use of 'consistent root' as opposed to' single  
>> root'... are logically the same thing.
>
> Not exactly.

No, not exactly.  but perhaps logically.

>
>
> The idea is that multiple providers of the same thing is rather  
> different than exactly one provider of that thing.

But doesn't each on those multiple providers accept the single  
reference root voluntarily?    At least to the extent that they accept  
it as the authoritative root.  In a sense don't we already have a  
market of sorts?  If the root operators wished to accept other  
authorities, they could.  Couldn't they?  I.e as it stands it is a  
voluntary arrangement where those who could do otherwise, choose not to.

In what way is that domination from the center?  To me it looks rather  
like a bottom up clearinghouse model.  while i don't argue that ICANN  
is a rose garden (well maybe it is, but i digress), i don't think that  
comparing it to the politburo is quite accurate.

>
>
> The reason that that difference is important is that it distributes  
> the way in which decisions are made - each provider makes its own  
> choices regarding which inventory it will carry.

In this case the individual root operators are making the decisions.   
Also as far as I understand there are few TLD registries outside of  
the ICANN approved list that these root operators could support if  
they wished.    Why don't they?

Also, who forces the rest of us to accept this particular model.  sure  
it might be challenge to find a new mapping model but nothing makes  
any of us accept the current model.  with IP addresses, sure, we have  
little choice.  but with domain names - where is the outside compulsion?

>
>
> It is indeed the kind of difference between a planned central  
> economy - the ICANN method - and a free market.  The difference is  
> choice made in one place versus a choice made by each person.  The  
> difference is that between "Top down" - the ICANN way - and true  
> "bottom up" choices made through the aggregated individual choice of  
> each user of the net.

As I indicated above this looks more like a clearinghouse model to me  
and not a planned central economic model.  We use the ICANN names  
because they are easy and they suit us.  if they didn't we would find  
something else.


>
> The reason that I use the word "consistency" is that it reflects the  
> core need: that users don't want to be surprised.

and they don't want to have work too hard.  or be different from their  
neighbors (which i think is a transitive property especially given  
cultural hegemony, but i digress again)

>
>
> Even singular DNS is not perfectly consistent - apart from its built- 
> in inconsistency that occurs as a side effect of its built-in  
> asynchronous update of information, DNS names are not consistent  
> even over short periods of time - we are all familiar with names  
> going away and changing.

So are you arguing that the need for consistency is not absolute?   
Probably not.  but we only would tolerate so much insecurity before we  
found a new tool.

>
>
> But the larger question is the this: Does consistency require a  
> Procrustean exact identity so that every root server group offers  
> precisely the same suite of TLDs or can there be some variation  
> around the edges?
>
> There are some who believe in the former, the "mirror" form of  
> consistency.
>
> Of course, internet technology and the end-to-end principle make it  
> impossible to require and enforce that there be exactly and  
> precisely one provider of name mapping services.

Exactly.  and yet, there is still is just one dominant name mapping  
service, even though there have been various attempts to start  
others.  Is this perhaps a market 'decision'?  did we vote with our  
feet?

>
>
> I have been arguing for the less strict form of consistency - in  
> which experimentation and growth can occur in at the edges and, if  
> such experimentation proves popular, it can spread to the core.

What stops that from happening now?  Just because ICANN/NTIA won'  
bless it, doesn't mean people could not do it - if they found a way to  
convince the users it was something they wanted.  Now, in a planned  
economy model, we might be able to force people to try the new stuff,  
or in the supermarket model we could put the stuff in a prominent rack  
by the cash registers, but in this model, people have to want it to  
buy it.  and it better be easy to use.

(e.g. just i l use almost all of the IM services, if it was easy i  
would probably use multiple name mapping services.  but even though i  
am mildly willing, i never found it easy enough to register for any of  
the other name services, so to date, i still use just the ICANN name  
mapping service.)

>
>
> By this I mean that different root providers would offer new TLDs,  
> in conjunction with the core TLDs offered by everybody.  That's why  
> I call these new, experimental things "boutique" TLDs - because they  
> are not found everywhere and those who use them know (or should  
> know) that they are not using mainstream products.

Incidentally I have been using the term boutique TLDs also - but i  
think in a somewhat different way, I use it to refer to those that  
would only attract a small group of registrants, even if this was a  
ICANN blessed registry.   i assume your definition precludes the  
notion of ICANN base  boutique registries.

>
>
> As for the word "propaganda": your word, not mine.  If I am somehow  
> guilt of using strongly colored words and analogies I am not alone.

yes, but you do it so well.

>
>
> (When I read your note I imagined you grinning when you used that  
> word - and knowing you as a person with a constructive intent, I  
> know that it was used with an intent to tickle our discussion in a  
> positive, even amusing, way.)

Well true.  As I said i think propaganda is an art form.  and I have  
been known to employ it on occasion, but i don't think i have ever  
done it as well as you did.  and hence my note of praise.

>
>
> Analogies are powerful analytical tools.  Should we avoid them?  If  
> so, given that humans tend to think via analogies, how could we do so?

no i don't think we should avoid them.  but sometimes they might be so  
strong that they could trip the message on its face in a Godwinesque  
prat fall.

> Procrustean
> Soviet Union
> Standard Oil Trust
> Orwellian "NewSpeak"

and of course

>> "propaganda"

cheers,


a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance