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

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

I strongly agree with what Chris said below. I think it's unfortunate that
Jon's account of the meeting valorized a particular proposal for the
transition, one that has been proven *not* to be acceptable to about one half
of this working group.

There is really no point in restating people's philosophical preferences at
this point, nor is anyone fooled or persuaded when one person proposes their
particular preferences as "safer" or "more likely to achieve consensus." We
ought to move beyond those kinds of games at this point.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> >Kent also suggested that while many of us support a mix of non-profit and
> >for-profit gTLDs (indeed, looking at the four most "popular" position
> >papers, some form of mixed system gets support from most of the signers of
> >position paper A, plus the signers of B, C, and D), he thought we could
> >reach rough consensus that it would be safer to *start* with non-profit
> >registries.  (Please stop me if I'm remembering this, or any other
> >statement, incorrectly.)
>
> Not by a longshot. If we do, indeed, start with 6-10 as consensus seems to
> indicate, we should not elevate any business model above any other.
> That is tantamount to claiming that one model is "better" than another
> and therefore more deserving of going first. All models are deserving
> of participating in any "testbed" phase.
>
> Christopher