Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> Limit them to one each and a) they will have 1/3 the name choice as NSI,
> and b) they will appear to be even more fragile than NSI especially since
> they are so new and NSI so well-established.

Image Online Design only wants one. Imagine that.

But fine, make it 3, and the working set goes from 10 to 30. Make that
28, since, as I said, IOD only wants one.

FUD gone in a puff of sanity.

> The current gTLD registry has 3 viable names.  Giving less than that to a
> new registries puts them in a significantly weaker position, particularly
> with respect to making a comparative analysis.

I'll see your FUD and raise you some market reality: IOD expects to
do better with .web than NSI is doing with .com - and you don't
have to risk anything to see that bravado succeed or fail.

> The idea that the mere existence of a list of folks wanting to submit an
> application somehow creates an obligation is facinating, particularly
since
> there is no language in that document which carries an IANA obligation,
> explicitly or implicitly.

That's a guess on your part. You're wrong again. But regardless, if you
wish to hold that view, then this view is wrong on all counts, as any
documents that IANA might have executed are null and void now that
ICANN has taken over the IANA function and failed to fufill them.

> yup.  greed is almost always transparent.

So is pig-headed stupidity, but I put up with it.

Christopher