> On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:05 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > > Suzanne, > > On Apr 7, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It is a matter of scope, to say nothing of opinion, that “all names are >> subject to socio-economic pressures.” >> [...] >> Given that discussion of “special use names” is even more likely than most >> to suffer from assumptions about context, a more precise formulation of this >> claim would probably be helpful. > > The way I see it, "Internet names" (that is, domain names whether they are > used in the DNS or not) are typically used to identify hosts, end points, or > services on the Internet. People tend to get wound up with their identity and > how that identity is made available on the Internet (or overlays on top of > the Internet). That being wound up often result in socio-economic pressures, > e.g., being bought/sold, triggering lawsuits over ownership/existence, etc. > Do some of those identities not get tied up in those socio-economic > pressures? Sure, the vast majority. However, I'm not sure I can see how all > identities are not subject to socio-economic pressures.
To be clear— I wouldn’t argue that “all identities *are not* subject to socio-economic pressures” any more than I’d argue that “all identities *are* subject to socio-economic pressures”. I note, for instance, that we spent over two hours in the ARCING BOF on Tuesday morning, discussing assorted ramifications of the fact that identifiers have contexts. It seems somewhat relevant, and motivated my request for a more precise formulation of the initial claim of what’s included in “all names”. Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
