Re: [ga-roots] On why the root is not open

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 11:56 15.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Harald:
>Your statement of what happened is basically correct.
>It was 6-10, not 5-10 and it was WG-C, not WG-B (unimportant errors).

Thanks for the corrections.

>However, one must add this important note:
>
>In choosing an arbitrary point between "a hundred" and "a million,"
>DNSO chose 7 - very much on the low side. We all know why.
>The TM lobby wants a restricted and highly regulated name space
>and a variety of incumbent registries don't want additional competition.

The TM lobby saw scaling problems for the dispute resolution procedures.

>It is now clear that 7 was far too restrictive, as many of us in theWG
>argued at the time. Too many good proposals didn't get accepted.
>(My proposal calling for 500 new ones in the first
>round was supported by about 1/3 of the WG)
>
>Indeed, we won all the economic and technical arguments.
>We were just outmuscled politically.

Be careful about the word "we". It is often hard to know who you are 
referring to.
In this particular case, I don't think you want to include me in your "we", 
since I believe many of the TM lobby's arguments should be classified as 
economic, not political.

>What cannot be emphasized too strongly is that ICANN does not
>operate in a political and economic vacuum. If it artificially
>restricts the market too much, there will be attempts to bypass
>it. Thus, ICANN must not blame organizations like New.net
>for "instability" it should only blame itself.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html