[wg-c] Re: Comments on the Brunner proposal

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Milton,

Just a quick note, first thank you for reading the proposal.

We appear to have different readings of Jon Weinberg's remarks concerning
the underlying unity of two approaches which he observed only appear to
be radically different, his 7th question, "What should ICANN's process be
for selecting new domains and registries?" Here is his text (reformatted):

	Under either approach, a relatively small group of people
	will choose the names of the new gTLDs. Under the first,
	the decision will be made by ICANN decision-makers, on the
	basis of their views as to which new gTLDs would be most
	beneficial to the community. Under the second, the decision
	will be made by registry operators, on the basis of their
	views as to which new gTLDs are most desired by the community
	(that being the course that will generate the most registration
	dollars).  These are similar considerations, and will likely
	result in similar sets of names.

I wrote:

       We differ. The decisions made by elites reflect the composition
       of, and common motivations of the elites.

Your comment was (in part):

	Elites are elites, whether they are native American, ICANN,
	or NSI-based.

Where our readings appear to differ is whether or not the registry operators
other than NSI are an elite. I won't argue that I'm part of an elite, nor
that the NCAI delegates aren't an elite, nor that ICANN's board or broadest
participatory membership, e.g., this working group, are elites, nor that
the NSI decision makers are elites. I also can't argue that someone employed
as an academic is not a member of an elite. I fail to see how, given the true
technical and financial complexity of registry operation, in comparison to
the millions of users of the DNS, one can argue that registry operators in
waiting are not also an elite.


Somehow the reasoning you offer on this issue makes use of the proposition
that non-elites are not only participatory in the present, but are also
capable of meaningfully executing their latent intent to operate registries
for top-level domains.

Assuming for the sake of argument that non-elites are participatory in this
working group, and possessed of latent intent to articulate their visions
of registry definition and operation, and able to realize their latent
capabilities, and assuming for the sake of argument that competition with
elite registries is inconsequential to their more than momentary existance,
(sorry for so long an assumption statement) how do you see this altering
Jonathan Weinberg's conclusion?

	These are similar considerations, and will likely result in similar
	sets of names.

Is your conclusion altered if "names" in the Weinberg conclusion is now
understood to mean anything related to the selection of new domains and
registries?

You made other points in your comment, and I'll address them later when I
figure out what changes in my draft would be required to accomodate them.
Feel free to make concrete suggestions. I look forward to your reply.

Eric