Re: SV: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal)

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

One of the dangers of so-called "industry self-regulation" that
was explicitly recognized by the Federal Trade Commission was
the possibility that certain industry interests can coalesce in
restraint of trade.

This seems to be happening now. We have a commercially marketed
ccTLD registry (Bill Semich) telling us that he does not support
any new competition from open gTLDs. He is being supported by
trademark interests who also have an economic self-interest in
restricting the gTLD market. While the trademark lobby has some
legitimate concerns about infringement, legal business activity
cannot be forclosed or unduly restricted simply because it
creates a possibility that infringement will occur in one one
hundredth of one percent of all registrations.

ICANN's board should be deeply aware of the danger of litigation
is these kind of rationales are used to stifle the market for
domain name registrations.

Specifically in response to Marilyn, I think this bears note:

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> My company has from its original postings in the Green Paper and White > paper supported a slow, controlled, and thoughtful expansion -- 
> suggesting that 1-3 could be possible number, but that we needed to
> start with a controlled trial of only one, with an evaluation before
>  proceeding further.

What you're saying Marilyn, is that your position hasn't changed
at all in the last two years.

Why should anyone on this list offer to change their position if
you are unwilling to make any changes or compromises in your
own?
Especially when you have been unable to support your position
with any serious refutations--or even serious engagement--with
the more powerful arguments offered by others on this list?

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/