Subject: Re: rTLDs (was: TLD with Entrance Criteria, then? (LONG!))

From: "Fraser Orr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:29:42 -0600

>Antony Van Covering writes:
>> The Internet was, and is, a network of private networks.
>
> Nonsense Tony. The moment so-called private networks
> allow the general public to utilize their facilities
> to such an extensive degee they alter their status to
> that of de facto utilities. Which means they welcome
> regulation, legal limitations, oversight and account-
> ability.

In what way do they welcome this regulation? Perhaps
your particular view of society requires them to be
hamstrung with regulation, etc., nonetheless, I imagine
you would find no utility company in favor of regulation
etc., were it not for the fact they are also granted
guaranteed success, by being made a legally enforced
monopoly.

> Alleged property rights are, first and foremost
> limited to activities that will no harm the "general
> good". Whatever remaining rights that we the people may
> grant are withdrawn when this transformation from closed,
> private networks is engaged and they become the commons.

Obviously you are entitled to your particular view of
society, nonetheless, "commons" usually refers to property
owned by the state, not the infrastructure of privately
owned companies, whether they are state controlled
monopolies or not.

> The only tragedy of this commons, though, is the inability
> of libertarians like yourself and Sexton to deal with the
> facts. The Internet is a global public network requiring
> control by the people, for the people and of the people to
> protect us from exploitation, oppression and suppression of
> liberties, rights and freedoms.

No one would disagree that the Internet needs controlled,
nonetheless, the Internet is THE prime example of good 
anarcho-capatilism in action. Control by cooperation,
not coercion. I can set my computer to have an IP address 
that is registered in the root DNS to "ibm.com". Nobody
knocks on my door and tells me change it or your going to
jail. Of course, no ISP worth their salt would allow
me to connect to their network with such an IP address.
The point is, unless I cooperate by the democratically
determined rules, I am greatly hindered, and hadly anyone
else suffers.

In what way am I exploited as a user of the Internet? Perhaps
by the excessive fee of $70 for domain name registration, or
the fact that I can't call my web site "ibm.com"? I see no
particular reason why I should be able to control the contents
of a database owned by a private company, nor why I should
complain about how much they charge for that entry.

In what ways am I oppressed, or suppressed? Because I can't
use 1024 bit encryption technology? Because I can't publish
pictures of myself naked?

The reality is that the real oppression and suppression on
the Internet comes from government interference, not from a
lack of givernment interference.

I admire what the FCN is doing, I think it is a worthy endeavor.
Unless governments try to regulate the Internet namespace, I 
see no reason to imagine that a monopoly on the control of the
domain namespace can or will survive. In fact, the reality is
the significance of domain names are greatly diminishing as
the web expands. I rarely type in domain names, I usually use
different databases for finding IP addresses than the DNS
(of course I am referring to Yahoo!, my local email address
book, my borwser favorites list etc.)

Additionally, I see no reason why the FCN/alternic/IPng
cannot succeed if they loose the atitude that someone
owes them something, and replace it with a "provide a
service for a benefit" -- win/win attitude.

To compare the DNS with some of the other utilities is
foolishness. If I want to use an alternative electrical
supply company, I have to pay them to lay physical cables
into my home -- an intrinsically very expensive thing. If
I want to include an alternative DNS to the current root
DNSs, I have to add a whole IP address into my network
configuration file -- hardly very burdensome.

To convince an ISP to include an alternative DNS (in addition
to their current ones) is hardly a difficult sell. "Excuse
me sir, how would you like to improve, or potentially
improve, service to all your customers by making a
change in your system that will take approximately
eight seconds to execute? Of course it will cost you
nothing, it will cost your customers nothing, and you
will be contributing to the common good."

I personally think we need governments to butt out of the
computer business, be they Microsoft or the Internet. It
was freedom from ARPA that made the Internet what it is
today.

Fraser Orr

---

From: Jeff Kittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:59:36 -0600

> was freedom from ARPA that made the Internet what it is

Pardon me for saying but was it not the DOD that started the arpa
project, I believethey are part of the goverment. Everybody has
legitimate concerns and everybody is
right, but I think there has to be some regulation and control of the
internet, sorry, there
all ready is to many bad things out there, if nobody can see it I'll
spell it out, the internet
is the foundation of future, it will keep growing and be utilized more
and various things
that we can not even see yet, so let's build a good foundation now.

---

From: Jeff Kittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:59:36 -0600