Re: [wg-c] another dispatch from LA; this mailing list

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> 1.David Maher wrote to me with this summary of his comments at the LA
> meeting, which I'm reposting as received:
>
> >my summary of my own comments at the wg-c
> >meeting are:
> >Given that a very small number of gTLDs is most likely to be authorized
at
> >first, I see no reasonable way to allow for-profit registries to
> >participate in the first round. The first new registries are very likely
to
> >be immensely popular, and I see no reason to create more NSIs by handing
> >some entity a billion dollar property. Theoretically, a lottery could be
> >used to select from among the conflicting claimants, but this still
appears
> >to me the wrong way to go about it. For-profit registries should be held
> >off until there are thousands of gTLDs and real competition can be
> implemented.
>
> 2. David also raised some concerns about this list, which I agree with and
> which I'm going to state in my own words.  We just had a worthwhile
> physical meeting in LA.  It lasted an entire hour, and nobody insulted
> anybody else; nobody spread FUD about lawsuits; everybody stayed on-topic.
> The fact that we've  been unable to meet those standards on the mailing
> list, so far, has been a real barrier to getting work done.  Folks have
> suggested to me that the list be moderated to mandate "civil discourse" (a
> la Stef), and I'd really prefer not to do that.  I do strongly urge
> everyone, though, to limit your posts to this list to actual work.  Milton
> has stated that he'll soon submit to the list a specific implementation
> proposal for the testbed period.  That's what everyone should be doing.

I agree with your points about the list.

To that end, my specific comment is that the distinction between non-profit
and for-profit, in this context, is pure FUD, and simply a means for those
supporting non-profit registries to get a leg-up on the competition.

It's rather insulting, actually.

Christopher