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

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	None of us can judge where the consensus lies -- and we can't move the
process forward -- unless people with views actually participate in the
debate.  We've had some worthwhile discussion on this matter, but, with the
exception of Eric, folks who oppose the inclusion of for-profit registries
haven't been participating.  We can't make progress that way.   And that
means that folk need not only to state their positions, but to explain
*why* they hold them.

	Milton, to his credit, has been taking the time to post arguments
supporting his position that for-profit registries would not be
problematic.  I'd like to see the folks, other than Eric, who believe that
for-profit registries are unacceptable to make similar efforts.  We can't
get anywhere unless each of us is willing to listen and respond to the
arguments on the other side of the debate.

	Kent -- I understood you to have stated in LA that in your view the
initial rollout should consist of nonprofit open registries, but that later
"chartered" registries might be for-profit.  Do I have that right?  On the
nonprofit-in-the-initial-rollout point, when I raised this issue on the
list, my rough count was that Kent, Craig, John Broomfield, Dave C and
David M were supportive, while Chris, Roeland, Milton, William, Timothy
Denton and Tony were opposed, and Eric and Bob C fell in the "no for-profit
TLDs ever" camp.  Please correct me if I have anyone wrong.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 08:34 AM 11/19/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 10:01:36AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>> 	The list has been uncharacteristically quiet over the last couple of days,
>> which is refreshing, but less than ideal from the perspective of getting
>> our work done.  The proposition has been stated and defended on the list
>> that the establishment of a mixed system of for-profit and nonprofit
>> registries would not be problematic.  There has been little opposition.
>
>My impression of the consensus is that for-profit registries might be
>OK in the future, but for the initial rollout registries should be
>non-profit. 
>
>>  Do
>> we, in fact, have rough consensus on this point?  All of you who believe
>> that the inclusion of for-profit registries would be unacceptable -- please
>> stand up and be counted. 
>
>Here.
>
>> (Certainly that view has been expressed on the
>> list in the past.)
>
>How, then, is it that you have suddenly come to what I consider the
>startling conclusion that we are near consensus on this particular
>issue? Are those past opinions to be ignored because they were in the
>past? I haven't seen anybody recanting those positions.
>
>-- 
>Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>