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

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Eric:
Position Paper B, which Chris Ambler AND Paul Garrin endorsed (no mean
achievement, given that one is suing the other), explicitly states:

"many of the signatories of this report supported the 6-10 proposal as
the lowest-common denominator for widespread agreement in the
working group." It goes on to add that "the proposal is far too limited
and imposes undue restrictions on competition, innovation, and
cultural diversity."

Put in simple English, 6-10 new TLDs are preferable to no new TLDs.

It is perfectly reasonable for the position paper to emphasize that
acceptance of a limited number of new TLDs is less desirable than an upfront
commitment to add more.

It is obvious that your only interest in this process is the adoption and
implementation of a specific TLD. In that regard your status is exactly the
same as Chris Ambler. Should your proposal fail to make the initial cut, your
only hope for your proprietary .NAA TLD could very well rest with the gradual
acceptance of more liberal policies. Bear this in mind as we move forward.

Eric Brunner wrote:

> 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