[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: The central issue, was Re: Basket and eggs, was Re: ICANN and IBM]

---- Begin included message ----
Ed and all,

  Excellent points here Ed.  Yes, I also believe that a neutral evolution
of the Internet is not only possible, but will occur despite what IBM
ICANN, or any other entity chooses to see fit to attempt to impose.

  The direction and influence that John Patrick and IBM is seemingly
attempting to impose is dangerous.  The reasons are many, but it should
be fairly obvious...

  But we are engaged in the battle of ideas here.  It may very well
be that the wrong or unhealthy ideas may win the day for the short
to mid term.  But that damage as Jim Dixon once said can be
routed around.

Ed Gerck wrote:

> Dave Crocker wrote:
> > At 02:24 PM 9/25/99 , Ed Gerck wrote:
> > ...
> > >And, let's be candid. The issue is Internet and information control.  Yes,
> >
> > Well that is certainly what a few people have turned it into, rather than
> > permitting a natural evolution of a system that functioned quite well since
> > its inception, going through roughly 8 orders of magnitude of
> > growth.  Those who turned this into a question of control have nicely
> > stifled further growth.
> Dave:
> After clearing up to you in my previous rejoinder who wrote what, I
> need to say how glad I am that we agree on the central and final issue
> of my original message.
> Indeed, as I noted in my first rejoinder, "my message" was my message
> -- while John Patricks's message was officially on behalf of IBM, as
> you could read from his message subject "ICANN and IBM", his text
> exemplified by  "I believe - and IBM agrees", and his eight company
> citations of "IBM".  But, John's message was also remarkable
> because as of later years IBM has always refused to restrict its own
> course of action to one option which is in the hands of others -- so,
> either John believes that it is not in the hands of others or he believes
> that there is no other option (ie, bad as this option may be).  My objective
> was to show that neither assumption is true -- no company or group of
> companies should control the Internet (as you also agree) and there are
> options in a natural evolution of the system.
> However, to avoid further confusions, IMO it is the natural evolution
> of the DNS that led to what it is today, including its problems and
> learning -- since natural evolution is what happens when the system is
> open-ended as the DNS is, with 100 million users (yes, this shows
> natural evolution over 8 orders of magnitude).  Which users are now a
> sheer "force of Nature" by themselves, I would say.  In fact, during all
> the present turmoil  the Internet has not stalled and strong growth has
> continued unabated, even though (as we know from history, for example),
> evolution does pose problems that need to be solved.
> Still and however, since the Internet is a global network of *private*
> networks and thus not a 'public good' of any sort, the only justification
> for control must be to allow it to function and evolve as that -- as a
> global network of private networks.  Which is denied by trying to put all
> eggs in one basket, besides the proverbial risk ;-)
> Cheers,
> Ed Gerck
> ______________________________________________________________________
> http://www.mcg.org.br/authors/eg.htm                    egerck@nma.com


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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

---- End included message ----