Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit

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

Jon,

Wouldn't it save time and bother if you just declared consensus
to be whatever the B group will agree to? They want title to the
data, they get title to the data. They want unified registry/registrar,
they get unified registry/registrar. They want for-profit first, they
get for-profit first. They want market principles to exclude all other
policies, they get market principles and the exclusion of all other
policies. They want ICANN to make no law, they get ICANN to make no
law. They want ..., they get ..., neh?

The rest of us can pop a soda, put our feet up, write a one-pager
that says "no" and "why", and make book on the odds the NC or Board
fail to find "blow it all up", "shoot the lawyers", and "oligarchies
R us" necessary and sufficient to either fix the operator problem,
or fix the namespace problem.

Position Paper A attempted a compromise, even on the issue at hand.
It did not however explicitly require for-profits in the first cohort.
As that is the meaning now associated to that compromise, I withdraw
from the list of co-signers -- regretfully, and not unaware of how
unimportant my signature is.

Cheers,
Eric