Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 2 August 1999, "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:

[...snip]

> Nope.  I am reminded of Frederick the Great's aphorism: who tries to
>defend e verything ends by defending nothing.  Simile, who tries to
>insert a large number of gTLD s into the root zone ends up locking
>the world into the existing three for ANOTHER 30 months.

Kevin, this is one of the things that bothers me.  You work from an 
assumption that no matter what is proposed, no matter how reasonable
we may be, no matter how much everyone bends over backwards in an 
attempt to accomodate, the TM/IP interests absolutely, positively
will not budge from their position, period.

You assume that any effort to propose situations in which more than a
token few new TLDs are added to the namespace will be greeted with
harsh opposition from the TM/IP interests, and they will refuse to let
any new TLDs exist.

If that is indeed the case, then two things must follow:

1)  There is no need for a working group on this, because regardless
of any proposals made, the TM/IP interests will always have their way.

2) There exists a group that has complete control over domain name
policy to the exclusion of all other groups.

Working from that position would indicate that any effort on this
is a waste of time, because every time someone makes a suggestion,
one can come back with, "Sorry, nope.  They won't allow it, don't
go there."

I'll keep arguing for expansion, because I don't believe the above is
true.  I think that there are TM/IP interests sitting quietly in the
background who are willing to listen to proposals, and who are willing
to be flexible.  I also don't believe that any one group has that kind
of power at this point.  If they do, anyone who did not immediately
speak out against it would be doing the entire world a disservice.  At
the very best, it would mean this entire organization is inherently
flawed.

So, at least for now, humor us.  Let's pretend that the process works,
and let's work trough some actual possibilities, without having
someone constantly pointing at the looming specter of the TM group,
proclaiming that everything we do is subject to their approval.
Otherwise, we'll never make any progress.  

If, in the end, it turns out that the TM interests do indeed wield
that kind of power, the DNSO as a whole needs to address how one
constituency managed to shoot down the combined labors of all the
constituencies.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org