Re: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
Declan McCullagh forwarded the message by...
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com> -- who wrote:
The NETCenter
What an oxy-maroon. What a self-referent -- not to mention self-congratulary -- canard. [...]
Any entity which has the unmitigated presumption to have "center" and "net" in its name demonstrates nothing less than total ignorance [...]
Reality is not optional. Trying to find the "center" of any piece of the net is equivalent to the cosmological "problem" of finding the "center" of the universe.
It represents the utter fallacy of hierarchy in a geodesic age.
I take your point insofar as "NETCenter" and crypto, but you repeat a common misperception. Although the Net is tough to control, and it is a distributed system of networks, there are -- of course -- a number of centralized process. The Domain Name System is completely hierarchical. Moreover, Jon Postel of IANA represents the Net's central authority due to: 1. the IP number allocations, 2. the DNS "root", and 3. the technical standards, such as port numbers, etc. Unless there was a certain degree of centralized control, in an engineering perspective, the Net "Would Not Work." That's the fact, Jack -- n'est-ce pas? Yes, it is *possible* to do away with these centralized functions, and this is happening now, in a very non-public way. -- KNC
At 4:24 pm -0400 on 9/25/97, K. N. Cukier wrote:
The Domain Name System is completely hierarchical.
Wrong example. And not for long. Wanna bet a buck that that it isn't in, say, 3 years?
Moreover, Jon Postel of IANA represents the Net's central authority due to:
Postel isn't exactly a good example of this, either. He's made himself in charge of controlling the uncontrollable, after all. This kind of "great man theory of the internet" is quaintly romantic, yes? It's certainly just as industrial as romanticism was...
1. the IP number allocations,
Bogosity alert. IPV6. Even the latest tweaks to IPV4, fer chrissakes... False "scarcity". And so your next straw man is? Ah. Here it is.
2. the DNS "root", and
Which, technically, doesn't have to be "owned" by anyone to stay maintained. All you need is an agreement by the TLD holders, which you'll get, or they go out of business. Look, Ma, no central control. Feh. *How* many permutations and combinations of 3 alphanumeric characters are there? Um, do we *need* three-letter TLDs? I thought not... Actually, I predict that the whole NSI sham will be a bad dream within, say, two Moore's cycles, or 14 internet years, or 3 meatyears, which is, of course, how I predicated my bet...
3. the technical standards, such as port numbers, etc.
Technical standards and market reality are not mutually exclusive. :-). There are lots of technically hierarchical things which are controlled by a geodesic market. The NYSE, or, better, NASDAQ, or, even better, the entire currency market, are great examples. Notice that each one of those is more geodesic -- and much bigger -- than the next one. What? The Internet? Oh. That's right. I forget the IETF... ;-). Sheesh... So far, the stuff you've thrown out here to "refute" what I said are the exceptions which prove the rule. Face it. It's cheaper to be "out of control" than "in control". That's what computers are for. Right? I mean, the more computers you have, the more standards matter, and the more standards you use, the less "control" you need. The less "control" you need, the less centralization matters, which, if you'll recall briefly, was my point.
Unless there was a certain degree of centralized control, in an engineering perspective, the Net "Would Not Work."
Excuse me while I recover my composure. And clean up a bit. I laughed so hard at that one, I blew rootbeer out my nose, all over my poor antiquated PB180... Okay. It's clean now. And, so... Look. By your above logic, Microsoft Network would have been a huge hit. They would have bought AOL *and* Compuserve. Heck. We'd still be using mainframes, or something. Centralized control went out with economies of scale.
That's the fact, Jack -- n'est-ce pas? Yes, it is *possible* to do away with these centralized functions, and this is happening now, in a very non-public way.
Oh? Like there's a secret cabal out there "managing" the massive decentralization of everything from steel to financial services to fast food to government itself? Right. Hate to break your bubble, Bunky, but all of this is the result of natural forces. The market. (Yes, Virginia, the market.) If there wasn't a market for, say, telephony in the 1920's, there wouldn't have been a market for automated switching, which got us semiconductors, which got us your precious IANA when the market for semiconductors created the internet. And, boys and girls, the *only* reason we still have central control of the internet is that internet was originally a socialist, hierarchically organized entity created by another hierarchical entity called a nation state. Just like the the nation state itself, IANA, and all other central "control" is surfacting away. Well, more like choking in it's own excrement, but soap is a prettier metaphor than the latter... Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/
participants (2)
-
K. N. Cukier -
Robert Hettinga