Re: [wg-c] non/for profit

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

> It seems that no one is now prepared to base policy upon that distinction.

Perhaps I haven't been sufficiently clear. I'm quite happy with policy based
upon the capacity of ourselves (some self-excluding), the Consitituencies now
represented in the Names Council, and the ICANN Board, to distinguish between
two capitalization models, one based upon accumulation, the other based upon
speculation.

Believing as I do that registry consolidation and prices below cost recovery
will characterize the speculative capitalization model (aka "for-profits"),
and also thinking it unlikely that we will be setting our hair on fire if we
decline to trade a monopoly market for an oligarchic market, I think it is
a waste of time, not to mention civility, to consider the for-profit case,
at least until after the non-profit case.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind, or suggest that I've written some
fabulous argument on the margin of a cookbook.

One thing that did stike me as odd however was this:

> But the regulatory mindset that bars [...] of potential entrants in
> order to satisfy some purely theoretical notions of how structure and
> conduct are related is truly perverse.

The return-of-the-hundreds is the part I've removed, that wasn't the part
which is odd, given Milt's position on 6-10. The part that is odd is the
guy who said we can't proceed case-by-case, figuring our way through the
minefield with our feet, until we've got all the general principles sorted
out, now argues the reverse.

Cheers,
Eric