Re: [wg-c] Consensus vote

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

Harold...
your comments below are well taken...

i would not hope that this would happen here and that  people, corporations
, & institutions who have indicated an overt support for the process
to-date,  will not attempt to try to subvert it behind the scenes.

should these attempts be made, i honestly believe that they will be brought
to light & come back to haunt those specific companies, individuals  or
organizations initiating them.

we can all  hopefully , take comfort in the knowledge  that people who are
involved in the decision and oversight process are much more sufficiently
enlightened and can't be scared by allegations of "instability" or "consumer
confusion" ...

there is, in my opinion,  no doubt that any expansion much be based on a
responsible foundation and  that there will be a strong need for monitoring
for both impact as well as abuses;  but the entire process should not be
held up because of the concern that there may be some isolated cases of
concern.

this kind of logic could  easily apply in evaluating the growth of
electronic commerce. i believe that many of the same parties who are
advocating "impact studies" , & "consumer confusion"  studies etc would be
very reticent to apply this logic to their specific e-commerce interests.
just look at the growth of electronic commerce over the last 36 months and
reflect on the fact that their have been isolated abuses but the overall
benefit CANNOT be minimized. these interests were then and are now , more
than happy to "push  forward" in this area, given many of the same concerns,
because it specifically benefited their  interests.

i would also certainly hope that the same companies and organizations would
not be proffering a "status quo" approach here with the idea that stifling
growth would prevent future competition from infringing on their already
substantial market share.

best wishes for a happy holiday season

ken stubbs

>
> This, of course, is part of the frustration, particularly for a rather
> cynical inside the
> beltway
> type such as myself.  It is a well-known lobbying strategy to block
> advancement on
> an issue by creating such regulatory or legislative deadlock.  Whether
> by accident or design,
> I see the same dynamics playing out here: making the best the enemy of
> the good and
> crashing the system by playing its various functions against one
> another.