G I O - Get Illinois Online. We’ve been hosting an email conversation for several years. Join the conversation.
|
| Subscribe to GIO-Talk |
| Visit this group |
There is also a more Chicago-centric mailing list, here:
|
|
| Subscribe to GIO-Chicago |
| Visit this group |
Here are two of them:
Jon citing David on simplifying the Net Neutrality cause under the more general framework of Structural Separation.
And I certainly concur: Structural Separation is the way to go. There’s a lot to be learned from the folks that convene around David Isenberg at Freedom-to-Connect. Don’t think I can make it there this year - but I would if I could! (Or I will if I can? We’ll see.)
Robin Chase (ZipCar, GoLoCo) is great! In this 2007 TED talk Robin addresses Carbon Emissions and the Digital Divide.
(The video was only just released.)
I composed a short list of some essential readings that reflect a world-view appropriate to the Internet Era, I shared it with friends studying Community Informatics and Civic Entrepreurship, two domains seeking a better world. Since I recently catalogued (part of) my personal library using LibraryThing, it makes sense to share these here as well (as they are part of my virtual library).
These writings provide a conceptual matrix for an interesting breed of Civic Entrepreneur- (it’s a partial list) … really a new model of Citizenship and Society/Polity. They aren’t new to a lot of you - and if you have other works that you think really need to be on the list, please let me know.
Movement as Network, by Gideon Rosenblatt, also: The three pillars of social source
David Isenberg’s Rise of the Stupid Network
Pushing Power to the Edges (pdf) by Jillaine Smith, Martin Kearns, Allison Fine
The Cluetrain Manifesto (Doc Searles, et al.)
Cory Doctorow’s Down & Out in the Magic Kingdom
Coase’s Penguin: (by Yochai Benkler … his book The Wealth of Networks is also recommended. There’s a wiki inviting discussion of his ideas.)
The list doesn’t represent any hierarchic ordering.
Free and Open Source Software Rules, and so do Free and Open Networks.
(Let’s not neglect open-hardware nor open-standards!)
With commodity tech running Free & Open Source Operating Systems and Software, priced at $300 $200, new (do I hear $100 per new system yet?) and with plenty or older hardware available for re-purposing, not to mention a proliferation of new networking and communication devices … we might take a moment to think of the potential ready to be unleashed, and to view how far we have come an achievement worthy of note.
What is next? Take our cheap hardware running software we’re free to modify and improve and interconnect, and let’s start interconnecting on our own terms.
We can and must move civil society communications infrastructure to the next level.
The International Summit for Community Wireless Networks is on the horizon… these are the folks who have been leading the way. We have the power to create the networks we want and need. If you were outraged at efforts to sink Net Neutrality or by the lack of a National Broadband Policy worthy of the name, if you are shocked by aspirations to filter, block and spy on content and services over the ‘Net, now is the time for us to (re)build our own.
What’s a tasty domain? The domain you want! (and sometimes the domain you had….)
Slashdot points to an important story for those following Internet/ICANN policy issues.
Domain Tasting occurs through a nice set of loopholes in Internet domain name governance. Some feel that the market will eventually sort this out, and others think that this much abused policy is a nice perk of the industry.
Most tasting occurs in what is known as the ‘add grace period” (agp) … a window of 5 days in which a domain can be returned to the pool of unregistered domains, but tasting can also occur after a domain expires.
Tasting refers to determining whether the domain has value… value has some subjective dimensions here, but two rather reductionist perspectives narrow in on whether 1) a domain is likely to attract plenty of traffic (so that even when parked it can generate profit) or 2) there are parties who will pay a premium price for control of that domain. This boils down to “what financial value can be extracted from control or resale of the domain.
A domain name being held by a Taster may be returned to the pool of unregistered names before the grace period ends at no cost… (excepting the case of .org domains, PIR.org having instituted a nominal restocking fee to dis-incent this behavior.
Tasting connects to a number of behaviors that may be detrimental to the name system and against the interest of Internet users in general.
Tasting identifies domains which can be snapped up and taken from the unregistered pool and which can be made profitable to the owner, but largely useless to everyone else (i.e. more noise and unavailable to meaningful development). If it looks like a domain is likely to generate revenue that would cover the cost of buying it, it makes perfect sense for them to hold on to it.
We have domain holders interested only in what they can monetize out of the domain … we have registrars engaged in holding domains in the add-grace and redemptive-grace period… we have perpetual holding of domains in successive registration and dropping of the same domain within add-grace provision…
Value of a domain should be more than this narrow sense of financial return.
The value of domains to the informational commons (the Internet) should also be considered.
The add-grace period may have made sense in the past. The Internet community would probably be better without it, but following the PIR lead, restocking fees may offer a partial solution. It’s a strategy favored by many as a solution to tasting.
However, if tasting is but one aspect of the behaviors in the domain ecology we shouldn’t treat it in isolation. Unfortunately the ICANN policy process favors segmenting some important issues (tasting, kiting, etc.) This divide the issues and conquer strategy benefits certain constituencies at the expense of others and at the expense of Internet users at large (all of us).
If we got rid of the add-grace period entirely… what would be the disadvantage to that? Think about it: a domain registration isn’t a large expense. The value of the time spent by an end user in the process of registering a domain, and dealing with the registrar easily outstrips the registration expense. (Just calculate the time spent by a modest hourly approximation of earning potential of the person in question.)
If we are talking about any scenario that isn’t a bulk processing of domains, the end user’s time (and the potential time of anyone he’d have to interact with assuming even the slightest possibility of a non-automated interaction) it makes no sense to have the AGP at all! If you bought it you bought it… let there be a restocking fee or return it to the pool (with no refund) if you made a mistake and don’t want to develop it. In short it doesnt save any legitimate buyer any real expense to be able to return a domain during AGP. (imagine the hurdles just in dealing directly with the registrar)
And in the case of bulk processing of domains, what basis would there be for return of domains other than your tasting didn’t return signs adequate value?
So, again, what domain is really tasty? The domain you want. Who has an inkling you might want a domain? A registrar where you checked the availability of a given domain name. They’re in a privileged position if you don’t take the domain. They’re also in a very privileged position if you fail to renew your domain in time, and they stand to make a nice profit off what was once your domain in that scenario. They may even play you off against others all the while offering to act in your interest for a premium price.
But that’s another topic. Or is it?
The notion of “astroturf” groups as contrasted with the “grassroots” is now somewhat familiar, but let’s further consider the phenomenon of industry funded institutes or “think tanks”.
These “institutions” are established to give the credibility of scholarly or scientific form to interest driven publications and statements, or to create enough noise so as to distract from or obscure the issues in play in that field. (Much as astroturf groups attempt to lend authentic public voice to particular positions, and keeping in mind that astroturf and industry funded policy think-tanks often operate in coordinated strategy.)
(NB: the science I am invoking here is human knowledge as related to practical activity… it may range from analysis of financial documents to questions of engineering potential, to environmental impact.)
If it were merely the production of ideas, studies, or reports where the content would stand on scientific or discursive merit, it would not be that bad. However, the capacity for publication and promotion of these ideas, along with resources to staff an idea (as opposed to staffing a line of inquiry or research) is the real danger.
One unfortunate result is junk science as basis for policy.
Another is loss of faith in the potential for rational (or even scientific) resolution of particular questions, especially governance and business matters with an increased likelihood that we allow mis-direction of our attention to the “freedom” of market actors.
We subjugate public policy to business interest.
Displacing civic matters with questions of business, finance, and consumption we short-change the equation we need to bring to balance. We exclude key variables.
For questions of communications policy and investment in public infrastructure, can we be objective?
Can we establish a framework for policy makers at local, regional and national levels?
In the wireless and broadband debates, can we leave open the fundamental questions surrounding ownership models, technology choice and range of network/technology/social purpose or utility?
These three questions are central to the effective planning of any infrastructure or technology project, whether in public context, or within an organization.
Among these questions we can outline a appropriate and necessary hierarchy: purpose, possibility, and plan.
Why do we have such propensity to take the plan as given, foreclosing possibilities inherent in technology and topology and tacking on purposes only to achieve sufficient buy-in from select groups? In part it’s the politics of contest, but along with a fairly uncritical acceptance of business assertions and a lack of faith in the rational potential of human discourse, we get the policy we settle for, and we settle for the policy we get.