[discuss] VGNIC-speak (was: rootservers)

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Tue Feb 25 16:34:04 UTC 2014


I don't consider anything I said to be a flame (nor your responses).  Perhaps you feel it is personal because you are passionate about this project.

And I think there is a metapurpose in probing into VGNIC/IUCG from a semantic angle.  I think it illuminates much about the process by which this branch of thought/technology are developing.

My remark about Hebe's nickname was merely a joke.  Perhaps it didn't translate well.  No point in being humorless.

As for the background, I appreciate it.  Some I knew (include a sense of where M. Pouzin stands in the internet's past); some I didn't.  I hope we are all continual learners.  I did go on Elizabeth's site before I wrote my  post and saw the quote from Vint Cerf from 1978.  I'll let Vint Cerf speak for himself as to whether he believes now (or was stating then) that "his internet project is Louis Pouzin's catenet."

As to whether "VGNICS is the very core of the Sao Paulo debate once we have technically implemented, tested and verified it," you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  I'm not sure I believe it is, or should be.  It could conceivably be that, or it could be something less or different -- time will tell.  It's harder to tell when using non-congruent technical vocabularies (one of my metapoints).  I'll let others delve deeper into whether this is quixotic or revolutionary, practical or fantastic, relevant or irrelevant/opportunistic, desirable or undesirable....  I will wish you luck in implementation, etc.


-----Original Message-----
From: JFC Morfin [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:29 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'mg at telepresse.com'; 'info at vgnic.org'; 'drc at virtualized.org'
Cc: 'discuss at 1net.org'
Subject: Re: [discuss] VGNIC-speak (was: rootservers)

At 08:28 25/02/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>I felt it was fair to note the use of a particular vocabulary, which
>seems associated with and primarily used by those within a particular
>movement, that few if any outside that movement seem to understand --
>and that this particular usage seems to impede discussions of the very
>concepts it is intended to describe.

Flame wars are of no interest if they do not have a metapurpose.

In this case you were personal (again, today about Hebe speciosa's
nickname) and wrong (the VGNICS is the very core of the Sao Paulo debate once we have technically implemented, tested and verified it).
Better to sop it.

For what Marilyn and you do not undersnand, I will document it later today in response to Bill Manning.

1. I certainly know Louis since 1978 and we created an association
(Eurolinc) together, but my technical roots are in sea operational use and my architectonic vision come from Norman Hardy's Tymnet.

2. Had you been on Elisabeth's site you would have seen that the reference is Vint Cerf. Vint Cerf is the one who explains that his internet project is Louis Pouzin's catenet.

3. You are probably confusing architectonical cultures.
http://pouzinsociety.org/: I certainly do not disagree with Louis Pouzin and John Day on everything, but on the peculiar DNS issue it happens that we fundamentally disagree!

4. Since I am not sure you understood who Louis is and how his positions relate to the internet's past, present and future:

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

More information about the discuss mailing list