Re: U.S. Postal Service proposal: restricting domain names to street addresses

[Michael Sondow <msondow@ic.sunysb.edu>]

Nat-
	These are good arguments. It's not easy to counter them. And yet
I do still feel strongly opposed to the identification of e-mail
addresses, or domain names for that matter, with geographical addresses.
	Perhaps if it were on a voluntary basis, that would work to the
benefit of the groups in the situations you describe, without taking
liberty away from others. But I am afraid that the Post Office wouldn't
stop with a voluntary association. Certainly the government, or rather
governments everywhere, would prefer to control people geographically,
via the Internet if allowed them. For tax purposes if for nothing else.
	So, I would say that "optional" is the key word here, as you
have said. Which eliminates any inherent geographical distinction in
e-mail addresses, leaving it up to each user to register their e-mail
address with their postal address if they wish, but not obliging or
coercing anyone into doing this. I suppose I might agree to something
like that. However, I still don't like the idea of giving any authority
regarding Internet addresses to the Post Office or any other agency
which isn't specifically by and for the Internet. And the current
proposal, regarding administration of ccTLDs by the Postal Service, is
dangerous nonsense, in my opinion.

				Michael Sondow	

On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

> Excerpts from mail: 14-Aug-98 Re: U.S. Postal Service pro.. Michael
> Sondow@ic.sunysb (2361*)
> 
> > I fail to see the logic behind your arguments. If e-mail can go to a
> > street address, it is no more than a telegram. Why, then, has all the
> > trouble to set up networked digital communications be taken? Surely the
> > whole point to the Internet is that it serves two-way communication that
> > is not restricted by geography: you can get your e-mail anywhere, change
> > your e-mail address or your domain name from one ISP or server to
> > another, alias mail, bounce it, forward it at will.
> 
> There is more than one whole point to the Internet.  (Indeed, the
> previous sentence is as close as I'd care to come to trying to sum up
> the whole point of the Internet.)  If you were right about the "whole
> point", Microsoft and others wouldn't be providing their city-specific
> web sites, and nobody would be in the business of broadcast over the
> net, and yet both of these applications seem to be thriving.
> 
> The real win, as far as geographic email is concerned, would be to have
> email groups that can serve to *enhance* geographic groups, notably
> neighborhoods.  There have been some very exciting success stories with
> things like giving email to a group of poor people in housing projects;
> by providing the convenience of email to such groups, it seems that you
> can enhance other aspects of community and ultimately even lower the
> crime rate (because people who know each other, having met via email,
> are more likely to watch out for each other).  It's also an incredible
> potential tool for activists -- if the city is neglecting your street,
> send email to all your neighbors asking them to write letters or come to
> a meeting about it.  Sure, you can contact all your neighbors in other
> ways, but what could be easier and quicker than email to a mailing list
> representing your neighborhood?
> 
> With regard to the notion of a hybrid email/physical mail service:  This
> is, to my mind, a transitional tool, nothing more.  As such, I think it
> could be a very positive development from an environmental perspective. 
> Much as I hate junk email, it's still far less environmentally harmful
> than junk paper mail.
> 
> > If community groups wish to set up local (geographical) lists, nothing
> > is stopping them from walking around the heighborhood and collecting
> > people's e-mail addresses. It is not necessary, and would not work, for
> > the addresses to be somehow defined by the neighborhood. People move.
> > Others who live there, and by your argument would have an address with a
> > local definition, do not want to be in the community group.
> 
> Sure, nothing's stopping them -- except that most people don't know how
> to set up mailing lists, and are shy about walking around to strangers'
> houses.  If someone relatively trusted, like the USPS, provided an
> optional service where you could register your email address as being
> associated with your physical address, something like this would be much
> more likely to get off the ground.  -- Nathaniel
> --------
> Unless all existence is a medium of revelation, no particular revelation is
> possible.	-- William Temple
> 
> Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb+faq@guppylake.com>
>