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

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> >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

<stupid example>
I have this wonderful business model that demands that every time a name is
registered in any OTHER tld than my one, a sum gets paid to me.
</stupid example>

The question is not if some models are better than others, but rather which
models look acceptable or not. If you wish to claim that it is not up to
WG-C to choose what models, then we might just stop right there...

Now, what Kent suggests (and I agree with completely), is that there are
some (one?) models that are acceptable to all of us (except of course when
you decide to put that model as hostage with a gun to its head and say "the
bunny gets it unless I get my way too").

The particular model is that of non-profit registry scenario, which in
itself is a bit of a misnamer, as the actual entity that runs the servers
could well be doing it for profit (and probably will be anyway), but that
the "rights" of the TLD are surrendered for all practical purposes to ICANN,
and that ICANN decides, how the registry interacts with registrars.

Of course, we can all stand around arguing saying that unless we get
everything perfect and all agree on everything we shouldn't move an inch,
but that just amounts to hostage taking, where the guys who don't get their
way won't allow anyone to do anything until they are happy, regardless of
the fact that they find the other solutions that they are taking hostage as
being quite acceptable.

Chris: you (and others) are on record for saying that you have nothing
against the non-profit registry scenario, so *that* scenario is seemingly
acceptable all around.

There is nothing near consensus on how/who/when etc... for the type of model
that you/IOD would want (ie, IOD gets to keep .web).

It would seem sensible to forward a recommendation on the non-profit model,
while recommending (sp?) further discussion/work/direction on the for-profit
model (maybe actually wait until IOD has finished with all the law-suits it
wishes to throw around, and that way we would have the legal position
clear).

Yours, John Broomfield.