Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

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

Christopher,

As you are not able to show unqualified acceptance of 6-10, as a member
of the non-consenting party (apparently enjoying leadership defection),
why is your opposition to "acquienscence" on some "least squares error"
basis (no position paper precluded non-profit, or shared for that matter,
registry forms) useful?

Doesn't the same principle require you to reject 6-10 as well?

Was there some inobvious way to read B so that if the rollout of 500 
new gTLDs failed, and the a priori confinement of trademark to only
those new gTLDs where the invisible hand of the market found rights
to marks favorable also failed, that non-profit forms could only be
deployed subsequent to, or contemporanious with, for-profit forms?

I understand your point that your ethnicity comes first, or at least
before Indians, not a unique view to be sure, but your for-profit
registry model has to be in the first cohort or none shall be deployed?

I gues this means we'll have to let Microsoft have first crack at the
game, even if registration is automatic, and free (a la IE).

Cheers,
Eric