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

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

> > I know, that's why I say you're taking hostages, where the hostage is the
> > non-profit scenario.
> 
> Fine. Start with for-profit, and put in non-profit later if the for-profits
> work. Charge them more to fund ICANN, which increases the stability.
> For-profit is, therefore, more appropriate than non-profit.
> 
> You want one over the other, and I want one over the other.
> 
> Now who's taking hostages? We compromise and say both.
> Christopher

No, I'm personally saying that your for-profit scenario is not acceptable
regardless of what other scenarios are around. You're saying that you don't
give a damn about the others as long as you have your one.
I'm against your scenario.
You are for your scenario, but find that as long as you can keep the other
shut out, you might have a chance for your one, whereas you fear that if the
non-profit scenario comes into play, it might work so well that noone will
want your scenario.
I'm not hostage taking. I'm arguing vehemently against your scenario, as I
find it a monopoly creation.
You, on the other hand ARE hostage taking. You tie any other scenario to you
getting your way.

Yours, John Broomfield.