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

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

> The real issue, that Kent, John, and Dave support, is one of exclusive
> non-profit model vs. an inclusive mix of non-profits and for-profits. They
> don't think a non-profit can survive in such an environment or they wouldn't
> be arguing so vehemently for exclusion of for-profits. I happen to think
> that they can, under proper management, but it does raise the "bar".
> However, I have made well-known my lack of understanding wrt non-profit
> operations (alien concept for me). What is also well-known is my willingness
> to accept their (non-profits) co-existance.

My problem is not the survivability or not of the non-profits, but the
registrant impact of the for-profits.
I don't care that companies make or not profit as long as they do it fairly
and that other companies can do it in the SAME way.
The registrant impact of the non-profits is (theoritcally) relatively safe as
there is (or should be) a structure there to protect them (namely ICANN).
In the for-profit case, the registrant is at the mercy of the company that
controls the TLD.
Trying to paint it as "oh, you're just trying to protect the non-profit" is
disingeneous (sp?). In fact the non-profit is (probably) just ICANN. Nothing
is stopping for profit entities from running a registry for a limited term
that they win in a competitive bid.
Instead of non-profit and for-profit, I think we should be rather talking
about competitive-limited-bid and non-competitive-unlimited-bid.
A non-competitive-unlimited-bid is by definition non-competitive. Make no
mistakes, *THAT* is what IOD wants. When it (and others) state otherwise,
it's just a bit of deliberate confusion to get a personal monopoly...

Yours, John Broomfield.