By whoisgary on Monday, July 16, 2001 - 02:39 am:

9/22/02 update: More info & daily Blog available at DoNotGo.com The issue of internet navigation is, in my opinion, the most important under-discussed internet issue of our time. As I see it, the destiny and future value of a great technology will be decided by what course of evolution this first generation of users allow the internet to take. Some might see this as over-statement, believing that no mistakes made now cannot be unmade in the future. I would argue that television’s devolution into a stagnant, lowest-common-denominator medium clearly demonstrates the danger. You don’t need to understand how the internet works to realize that navigation is a backbone element of internet infrastructure. The fact that you need to know where a place is, and a map of some kind to get there efficiently, is too obvious to require explanation. What is not as obvious (at least to most “explorers”) is that in this “New World” the science of map making has become the business of location promotion. The internet mapping, or indexing industry, is rife with corruption. From the standard practice of openly selling inclusion and placement, to the more subtle influence of affiliate preference, this industry is driven by bad policy and counterproductive incentives that make map perversion and distortion inevitable. As is usually the case when the capitalist system fails to produce an industry capable of serving the public interest, it is the rules of the game, and not the players, that are to blame. For free enterprise to work there must be fair competition or, more precisely, competition with at least one honest producer--which is the check that balances corrupt influence from consuming an industry. Unfortunately sometimes the game starts before the rules that would allow fair competition have been established and rule making ends up being made just part of the game. Somewhere between this pointless chaos and Bill Gates-ien eternal dictatorship, there is the perfect freedom (all the freedom any honest player needs) that optimizes progress and innovation. That better way is the first thing we should be looking to find on and for the internet. In the internet indexing (mapping) game, the playing field is made of URL’s or site addresses. The ball is site description (submission) information provided by site owners, and the goal is to organize this raw information into an accurate, easy to read, complete map. Unfortunately, under the current rules or “system,” there is no real competitive game because the field and the ball have been declared private property, and no talented, innovative, motivated players are allowed access. Sadly, most people looking from a distance can’t see that the action on the field is just some corporate CEOs kicking the ball around on their lunch hour. To have a competitive game that produces the achieved goal, we must let real players on the field. In real world terms that means we must allow open access to the raw material of web indexing--site location and basic description information. The easiest, most harmless way to regain this openness is to simply prohibit corporate squatters from seizing control of what is effectively public land. By slightly modifying a few current regulations, the public’s right to equal and complete access can be established and preserved. Under the current system, the government requires the maintenance of a DSN, or registered name database, in compliance with the logical fact that websites must have unique addresses for the internet to work. Unfortunately, this established minimum is about as useful as a Constitution absent a Bill of Rights. What the government hasn’t guaranteed is that this basic asphalt of the information superhighway (domain registration information) be maintained as a useable or useful public resource. Currently “whois” information is accessible. What has not been made available is the infinitely more relevant “whatis” information that should be part of this essentially publicly owned database. What needs to be regulated into existence is a domain owner’s right to include site relevant information as part of the “personal” information maintained in the “whois” database. By guaranteeing this simple right of ownership, a very liberating and powerful raw “whatis” index can be created without placing any substantial new burdens on the system. In effect this minor regulatory change would standardize and centralize the site submission process and create efficiencies in the indexing system that would save billions of man-hours of work now wasted by current chaos. For web users, the benefits would be seen in a reformed indexing industry that could no longer treat web mapping as a part-time hobby or a promotional tool and remain competitively viable. For the first time there would be a level playing field made of guaranteed minimums that would promote the innovation that will lead to a more precisely navigable internet. From my perspective the logic of this simple expansion of the registration database to include site relevant information is irrefutable truth. What can be reasonably debated is the exact “hows” of this expansion. I offer this crude blueprint of what I think needs to be done to create a better, more efficient system with the hopeful expectation that the attention of better minds will improve and refine it. As part of the “whois” database, registered site owners should be allowed to maintain a centralized, public registration page outlining site characteristics. Because many site attributes are not unique, and therefor do not require unique description (that would only complicate indexing). Certain standard content like, News, Discussion, Pictures, Links, Downloads, Zip code, etc... or qualities like, No membership, No pop-ups, No selling, No flash, etc... would be described using a standard multiple choice, or check off, form. More unique qualities of content would be described by providing the opportunity to include a limited number of relevant keywords. Domain owners would be held responsible (by those who would be reformatting or adding value to the raw index) for the quality (honesty) of the information provided and would be allowed to re-edit this information as required. To accommodate subpage content, not directly relevant to main site description, opportunity to provide a link to a sub-page index, of standard format, would also be made available for comprehensive sites, or sites that provide unrelated site hosting under their domain name. Once established this raw “whatis” database would be made freely available to be expanded on, and improved by, a larger, more capable and competitive, search industry.

By David Nice on Friday, August 10, 2001 - 08:18 pm:

This is an incredibly genius idea that warrants continued development. It must be turned into a formal proposal and given plenty of exposure to create a groundswell for just such a system. Count me in as a supporter of just such a proposal and advise me if there is anything I can do to support it.

By whoisgary on Saturday, August 11, 2001 - 01:26 am:

David,Thanks for the positive feedback and the offer of support. Publication of my article by webreference.com may with luck be the critical positive turning point the idea needed. I am hoping this credibility boost will obligate people like Danny Sullivan of SearchEngineWatch.com to voice an opinion. As for things you can do to help--sending a “you should look into this” email to places like c-net TV couldn’t hurt. I hope to "formalize" and improve (add detail) the proposal on this message board, so if you have ideas regarding better text or idea implementation please offer them.

By whatiser on Thursday, August 16, 2001 - 09:41 pm:

I received this one negative e-mail reply to my article, The other 95% of e-mail was very positive: Thank you for the provocative report in the Aug. 9 Webreference. I am afraid I must mostly disagree. From my perspective the logic of the simple expansion of the registration database to include site relevant information is irrefutable truth. Irrefutable? You raised a red flag with that one -- when someone claims an absolute truth, there is almost always a big crack behind the statement. I submit that your proposed registry is doomed at the start because it relies on the registration owner to self-classify. Search engines have always struggled for accurate, meaningful classifications and have wrestled with site owners since the beginning. If you think the present system is "corrupt," how can you trust site owners. What makes you think www.XXXhotties.com will not list themselves as "news"? Even honest site owners will inflate and misinterpret their own sites. This is a huge, basic flaw. For free enterprise to work there must be fair competition or, more precisely, competition with at least one honest producer -which is the check that balances corrupt influence from consuming an industry. I must argue with your presumption that this breed of fairness is necessary. I doubt that it is even possible. There are very few "fair" information or entertainment directories in the world and even these rely on human editors who have biases -- the Thomas Guide, the Dewey Decimal system, for instance. The rest rely on an intermediary, be it a magazine publisher, Yahoo, movie critics, or Consumer Reports. These systems work through trust of the intermediaries whose biases are known. For instance, I know how to interpret Time magazine as compared to People magazine. It may not seem ideal but it works. Better,IMO, than the site-owner declarations o the proposed whatis system. My Reply Regarding irrefutable: When something has little or no harmful potential and great beneficial potential and would cost virtually nothing. I claim it is irrefutable fact that not trying it, makes about as much sense as debating if water is wet. Regarding “huge, basic flaw” of self-classification or SPAM: Sites like E-bay work because LYING and CHEATING carries with it a price to pay. The fact is the search industry isn’t trying very hard regarding making spamers accountable. I would claim that most internet map-makers are in fact themselves paid-in-full spamers. Under my proposal the now private lying, cheating, or bigotry would have to be done in the broad daylight of public exposure, under the than empowered eyes of honest watch dogs. Unfortunately some of the ideas I have regarding spam prevention, that might appease your concerns, also might have value as intellectual property and I don’t think defending do-ability should obligate me to give everything away. I suggest you look at the real world and apply some imagination and you might realize that spam prevention (including e-mail) on the money hungry, big business controlled internet is more a matter of willingness to do it, than ability to do it. Regarding fairness and what works? You seem to be implying that I am advocating that we make the players good, fair people. To the contrary, I am merely advocating that the game be played on as fair a field as possible, by rules that are as fair as possible. The peak performance we should all logically seek to encourage is created by fair competition, not by unfocused chaos or unfair advantage. Regarding what works: I would argue if we let the real world be run like we are allowing the internet to be run, wasted energy and pointless redundancy would be literally killing us. It is hard to approximate, with a real world example, just how insanely stupid the current internet rules are, because there is no real world piece of valuable infrastructure that can be created and maintained for the virtual pennies “whatising” the internet would require. Imagine a world where every phone company had to independently wire every house with there own ugly proprietary phone lines. Or a world where there was no standard phone book, but rather hundreds of phone books each only containing the numbers of people willing to pay to be included, and all guaranteed to be incomplete. Or a world where every road was corporately owned, and a trip to your neighbors house could take three days--as the corporation required you to drive by every 7-11 in the state to get where you wanted to go. This is the kind of unnecessary inefficiency we are accepting on the internet. As I see it, it’s like there is a giant pile of free money (increased innovation, productivity and functionality) with everyone’s name on it, and we are just letting it sit there to be blown away by the winds of changing opportunity. Why? Because know one can guarantee you that this hope for the future is real money? For what it’s worth, my confidence that the “money is good”, that this is a “no lose proposition”, and a healthy “free lunch” is boundless. If I could sell all I own, including my life, for enough to guarantee you agent the impossible losses you fear, I would do so. Unfortunately, my best words, my meager fortune, and being willing to be publicly gutted like a fish if I am wrong, apparently just isn’t enough. But who knows--maybe I should try an “how much is my life worth” e-bay auction.

By InTheBeginning on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 02:37 am:

An opportunity to “do it right this time” regarding internet infrastructure has been provided by the president of ICANN. By conceding that the current stupid plan is, in fact, a stupid plan, there is a chance that “whatis” my proposed better way will become a considered reform. Hopefully there will be new congressional hearings, and if I can get a little timely media exposure, the public can regain ownership of a couple of lanes on the information superhighway --that in turn can be accurately mapped and cleared for the real traffic of real content. Unfortunately, there is little I could find on the web that explains, without bias, in publicly consumable form, the who, what, why, and how of all these infrastructure issues. Here are some links to some of the obtuse "stuff" written on the subject: President's Report: ICANN – The Case for Reform Prepared Statement of A. Michael Froomkin before the Senate 2-14-01 Icann: "Disorganised, ineffective, understaffed and underfunded" Where goes ICANN -- From: Dave Farber Whois stuff: The Murky Debate Over an Internet Address Database I am going to attempt to explain here in simple, direct language what this is all about--and suggest what I hope will be done with this opportunity. No doubt this text will be pretty ugly to start, so I will be making dated revisions. The first thing that should be understood is nothing that has been done to date regarding any internet naming, addressing, or navigation issues has been done in the public interest. The only persons who have had any say or influence on policy are corporate stooges and free-enterprise spamateurs. Bogged down moderating the insider fights between the big crooks (trademark holders) and the little crooks (trademark parasites) over "whois" going to get to exploit internet infrastructure, the sensible public interest goal of creating an open, free, empowering, efficient, stable, and incorruptible infrastructure has not made the agenda of the controlling powers that be. This cart-before-the-horse thinking, has led to cart-running-over-the-horse action. The Issues: -Government Control -Maintenance of Root Servers -Deciding What and How Many New TLDs Will Be Created -Establishing Fair tm Dispute Resolution.--Address Access -The Whois--Owner Accountability--and Web Navigation. Government Control: To the detriment of the public interest, the red-herring dispute over which bad brother--Big Brother Government or Big Brother Big Business--should be in control of internet infrastructure has got everyone missing the objective. The real objective should be to simply establish fair process and logical standards (regulations) regarding how the internet's foundation (infrastructure) is maintained and built upon. The problem with discussions regarding technology is that the terminology often gets too “technical” and too distant from common references. For the technically illiterate (myself to some degree included) I think it is best to think about internet infrastructure in terms of a real (common) world analogy. In simplistic overview, the root of the internet is basically a world-wide pet licensing agency with the added circumstance that the pet's identification number converts into a real name. The only flaw with this analogy is that we don’t license pets so the public can find informational or entertainment content a dog named Flipper or its owner might wish to provide--so you have to pretend just a little. In the real world we license pets to provide accountability and to help prevent the harm and damage “animals” can cause. On the internet, a similar need to discourage certain “bad behavior” through accountability is also provided by the licensing or the “domain registration” process. This analogy provokes the obvious question: Why is a simple bureaucratic function of pet licensing turned into complex, politically volatile, rocket science when the pets live in cyberspace? The simple answer is because the public hasn’t been informed that all the layers of technical and political “malarkey” that have been attached to domain registration have been deliberately contrived to hide the fact that under it all we are just talking about the maintenance of a database of simple standard license information. In the real world, no one could justify to the public the creation of whole industries to perform the simple task of licensing pets. In the real world, people understand that filling in a few fields on a form and installing the information in a logically-indexed, rationally-searchable database is, in fact, “kid stuff” and does not require a massively sprawling, for-profit, corporate solution. Much of the anti-government rhetoric in our nation is produced by the greed that infects our national culture. Years of progress have been retarded on the internet by the damage done by “the soldiers of the greenback” trashing for profit under the false banner of “Fear Government”. The ironic fact is, most of the government is owned by the very people waving the banners. The public is being played with, and the game is to create false choices to keep us monkeys away from the middle where the best, most efficient solutions are likely to be found. The creation of ICANN itself provides good example of this stupid game. Instead of sensibly creating a non-profit corporation (like PBS) to actually accountably manage internet infrastructure (the licensing of cyberpets) within sensible guidelines--we are given in ICANN a fake, non-profit, non-government organization that serves no purpose but to allocate portions of our wallets, and the internet's value, to greedy corporations and the symbiotic scam industries (spam e-mail and spam web content) they shelter. This creates the perfect world for the greed mongers--a government that has avoided accountability and virtually complete freedom for the chaos pimps. It is all as obvious as the spam in your mail box. Why a retard like me is the only one pointing it out is damn scary. ICANN Regovernmentalized? Maintenance of Root Servers Til someone can provide a good reason why anyone should waste anything more than one sentence on this subject, here is my one sentence: The government shoud buy some hard drives and pay the electric bills, and we should worry about the 9 billion more important issues. Deciding What and How Many New TLDs Will Be Created For those who don’t know, TLDs or ccTLDs are the only Theoretically useful Letters after the last Dot in web addresses-- you know that pretty meaningless com, net, org, gov stuff. I say only theoretically useful because, like with most parts of internet infrastructure, an unwillingness to impose any coherent, consistent standards or to allow navigationally useful expansion has reduced these little extra letters to just that--extra letters. Born out of necessity, as a concession to the fact that more than one dog is likely to be called Fido-- ccTLDs were, in hindsight, a pretty lame effort at dealing with the very substantial problem of more than one web site wanting to be called (marketed and accessed) by the same name. I think most people understand that .net .org or .etc alternatives don’t provide a practically equal or even usefully viable choice. I would go a step further and argue that the confusion (misdirection) they cause provides good enough reason to just scrap the whole dot thing. The fact that life is unfair and gives the one Fido that gets to be just Fido some advantage over Fido365 or TheOtherFido or the FidoWithSomeContrivedExtraWordsTiedToHisName, I think, obligates us to make a best effort to find ways to balance or re-even the score where possible. Perhaps little can be done to minimize the real world marketing advantages unfairly granted the one site that gets to be TheOneTrueSite.com, but in terms of cyberspace accessibility, much can be easily done to mitigate the unfairness that exists in the nature of a system that allows words to be exclusively owned and their meaning perverted. Establishing Fair TM Dispute Resolution.--Address Access Assuming the overall objective is to create an internet address system compliant to the needs and intentions of the individual seeking content. The only question that needs to be answered regarding who should be allowed to “own” what domain name is: Is the names “ownership” consistent with what a reasonable persons expectations would be? In other words, when a name contains substantial parts of a brand name or trademark, what the domain name “implies” should be consistent with what it provides. In still other words, if the likely, reasonable, conclusion is that a particular domain name will lead to content provided by a trademark holding company (IBMonline.com), no other person or company should be allowed to use that name. Similarly if the name implies the opposite (notIBM.com) the trademark holding company should not be permitted to use[up] that name. Once we establish by policy that deception is the “bad thing” to be resolved out of existence the remaining question is who should decide the inevitable disputes. Personally I believe there to be sufficient need for clear accountability regarding all internet infrastructure issues to justify the creation of a high level (department head by presidential appointment) government department. This “doit” (Department Of Internet Technology) government agency could be established under the narrow mandate to provide for the maintenance and productive development of internet infrastructure (addressing and navigation) with the clear provision that it would have no authority regarding the prohibition or promotion of any web content beyond preventing deception and misdirection as it relates to root internet navigation. I know the word government scares many-- but from my perspective, without real accountability (political vulnerability) letting some secretive group of insiders dictate policy, and end product, is down right horrifying. <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24318.html" TARGET="_blank"> Net law expert slams domain dispute process</A> The Whois--Owner Accountability--and Web Navigation. Under the current “let chaos and an abundance of spamateurs be your guide” system, internet addresses are being just doled out in an overpriced resellers market that has no consistently applied standards. Who gets to buy what, or how much, at what price, for what purpose, providing what ID is decided by erroneous if not corrupt oversight. The end product of this deliberate non-system, unsystem--is the week, near useless, and quite abuseable “internet rotten stone” known as the “whois” database. The ironic imbecility of the fact that the "internet infrastructure gods" see greater value in giving the public access to my phone number and street address than in providing a concise description of what might be found at my web address --defies logical justification. Returning to my earlier pet license analogy we don’t require pet owners to detail their personal life and than describe the pet they are licensing as “just something named dogorcatxyz.com”. In the real world this kind of nonsense would not be tolerated, and when you consider how fundamental it is to internet function to be able to find “pets/sites” (not owners) based on the sites characteristics you can easily see that the “whois” is just useless "whoie". When I first discovered that we are attempting to build the internet--one of humanities most potentially powerful technological advances--around and upon such a cheap, superficial cornerstone, I wondered: How can this be? Can’t everyone see how stupid this is? ...Than I remembered that I live in a naked-emperor country that is spending 10 Billion dollars a year just researching building an unpossibly preposterous nuclear umbrella... Conceding that it was unreasonable to expect regular stupid humans to know, or point out, a bad design when they see it, I narrowed my wondering to the question: Why aren’t there at least some intelligent, logic loving, radical science types cruising the information superparkinglot screaming “there building the internet on mush”? ...Than I remembered that science gave up on enriching humanity the day after we landed on the moon and it was realized that scientist can just sell tang and enrich themselves instead... So now I am left believing that everyone is either a moron or a sell-out. The good news is I don’t have to wonder why? ...a culture of cheap, plastic people would build a cheap plastic internet. Search engine listings up for bid To be continued. Coming soon “whatis” my expanded and improved “whatis” proposal, soon to include extra special super-duper binary action. Comic Relief: Like Wile E. Coyote I am feeling like a “S u per G e nius” the question is can any of you rascally rabbets prove I am on the wrong track, and train on my parade?

By Whatis NotWellWriten on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:18 am:

This more detailed reformulation of my “whatis” proposal is still a work in progress and should be judged with that in mind (I will make additions as time permits). It also should be considered that this is an unpaid, part-time effort, formed from just one persons imagination. In wondering for a moment, what great things could be accomplished by devoting more substantial intellectual, and financial resources to internet infrastructure we should all feel some social and cultural embarrassment. Objective: Provide the needed foundation upon which a best possible result can be produce regarding the complete and accurate mapping of the internets content architecture. Critical Elements: Provide enhanced capacity to “search the web” regionally or by classification of other significant, standard, site (domain) attributes. Create a system of “fair judgment” and accountability to discourage deceptive practices. “Whatis” Proposal The “whois” database, should be expanded to provide site relevant information (outlining site characteristics), there by creating a “whatis” database that would provide a centralized and standardized source of detailed, and reliable site submission and description information. Inclusion in, the “whatis” portion of the domain registration database would be strictly voluntary and use of the database would be open to the public or any search industry member that wishes to “add value” to the resource. System Elements: Standard Information: Information a member or included site would be required to provide: • Site activation date. • Site status: Active || closed/under construction || domain name for re-sale • Regional Relevance: Substantial || slight || none Area Served (or delivery area) Postal codes / phone Area codes / GPS longitude/latitude Nation/County/Town <I>Stop: If nothing more ambitious than a system that allowed for the indexing of the limited information listed above were possible, it would still be a great step forward. Indexes like whois.net would be made substantially more useful if the substantial number of inactive domain names could be filtered out of the results returned. Than consider the impact on local commerce, culture and tourism if it were possible to type in a location and receive a clean listing of all the web sites representing professional services, businesses, or places of interest within a 10 mile radius. This potential power of the internet should have been realized from its inception and would have inspired all “interesting things” no matter how regionally specific, to develop a presence on the web.--Unfortunately this better, bigger internet will not be built until we are willing to inject a little cement into the internets foundation. continuing: Here are some more ambitious “extra” possibilities.</I> • Stock symbol (if exchange listed company) • Government registered Trademark or Brand name • The web-sites Primary Function (5 total points, no more than 3 per. one item) (example#) Personal expression (0) Entertain (1) Inform (3) Product or professional service promotion/sales (1) • Provides originally composed or exclusively provided on site content. little || partial || most • Site Size: small || medium || large • No Window spam: pop-up window advertisement, multiple widows, or uncloseable windows (for the purpose of Spamming by denying user control) • Suggestions Welcome Keywords: I suggest the option to provide up to 10 weighted keywords, listed in order of relevancy. It would be my preference that the first three words be selected from a list of “standardized (generic) words” describing common site attributes or popularly requested site content. Like: discussion, images, video, sound, jokes, lyrics, games, mp3, directory, search-engine, maps, jobs, attorney, travel, pets... Note: As time permits I will put together a sample from with a more complete list of words (also providing definitions and listing “same as saying” synonyms) Binary Action: Consider binary math: On the surface (00010101 + 10000010 = 18) looks arcane and pointlessly human unfriendly--but applied in the right circumstance i.e. inside your computer, it made what seemed impossible, possible. By applying binary like principles to how words represent site content we can achieve a greater level of navigational efficiency by tying a relevancy number or rank to a word match. Accountability-- Description Honesty and System Integrity. The current system has built into it some profoundly negative and destructive incentives. In effect, instead of paying people to pull “weeds” out of “the internet garden” the current system is paying people to sneak weeds in (SEO, paid inclusion, etc.) A better system would encourage (financially reward) all good internet citizens to de-spam the superhighway. By putting a bounty on the head of spam and its basic ingredient deception we can clear the road of litter and actually see the information superhighway that has been hidden under all the scheming clutter. Using E-Bay as an example of a system that provides some working checks-and-balances regarding abuse. I would contend that a similarly simple yet effective system can be developed to protect the “whatis” database. Reliability of Information provided insured by a value backed promise. I propose that site owners/managers be allowed to guarantee in effect the honesty of the information they provide the “whatis” database by offering a “prove me a liar” bounty of up to say $500.00 with the added collateral that they lose not only the money but also inclusion in the database if they are ultimately “proved” to be a deliberate liar. The incentive to provide this guarantee would be a higher relative site ranking based on how much bounty is offered. An army of freelance sheriffs. Too reduce the number of paid staff required to enforce the honesty guidelines regarding keywords and description. I suggest that a three (or so) level system be established that allowed (registered) web citizens to earn a percentage of the bounty money collected from system abusers. Junior members of this volunteer enforcement force would be allowed to make an accusations of deception if they believe a web site has been inappropriately described by the information provided the whatis database. After a second member corroborates that opinion, the site owner/manager will be sent a e-mail informing them that an accusation has been made. If the site owner agrees to make suggested changes to the database information the mater is resolved at no penalty to the site owner/manager. If on the other hand the site manager believes the accusation to be false they may protest and request a senior members opinion. If the senior member supports the accusation the site owner/manager will be provide a last opportunity to make suggested changes without risk of penalty. If the owner/manager remains confident in the validity of the information they have provided, they may appeal to paid staff for a final determination. If the staff person supports the original accusation the penalty may include full or partial forfeit of the owners “bounty money” (to be awarded by some established percentage to the accusers) and removeal from the database. If on the other hand staff sides with the site owner/manager all members who supported the accusation will have their member status reduced, leading to possible demotion or revocation of membership. Without having to detail all possible “what if” scenarios I hope the basic idea is understood and will be evaluated as if it had the benefit of more tediously provided detail (which I will add eventually). An accountable court The integrity of the judgment process regarding guideline violations should be supported by two branches of accountability. First (like at e-bay) a publicly accessible “recorded history” page would be maintained for every “whatis” included site-- neither the accused or the accuser would be able to hide behind any secrete process or hide from public scrutiny. The second branch should be political accountability as management of the paid staff should only serve as long as popular support is maintained. Links 03/13/02 A hopeful development 04/03/02 Bob Frankston's nail head hitting