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

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Eric Brunner wrote:

> 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

Wrongheaded as it is, the post gets to the heart of the issue.

Many of us feel that it is Eric and Kent who are insisting upon their
specific model, to the exclusion of all others.

I for one have no objection at all to letting them try out their model.
What I and many others object to is the insistence of a small group of
people (about 6 at most) that ONLY their model should be implemented; i.e.,
that NO for-profits be allowed at all, that NO registries be allowed to
integrate the registry and registrar function, and that the number of gTLDs
be almost exactly what they decided it would be two years ago, before the
work group was ever formed. I have not seen any flexibility at all in their
positions.

On the other hand, I, as someone who believes that there are powerful
economic and cultural reasons to declare a large number of new TLDs at the
outset, have agreed to accept a plan that limits the number to 7, with no
guarantee that there will ever be more. This is a huge concession made in
the interests of finding a consensus. (and by the way, I was happy to see
Mr. Penman corroborate some of the logic of adding a large number --that it
actually benefits the concerns of trademark owners.)

By now it should be totally obvious to anyone who is interested in
consensus that the initial set of gTLDs must accommodate different models.
That is a baseline requirement of consensus. Any other position means that
one group is a total loser and another is a total winner. So let's stop
debating whether we will allow each other's positions to exist at all, and
start talking about how to implement a heterogeneous model.