Re: [wg-c] One summary of NO voting rationals offered

[Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>]

Eric,

Ok, some large commercial, industry and governmental interests voted against it,
although it has been pointed out that some people were speaking personally, and
not for their assumed constituency. In general, they will vote against change, as
the present is ok already, and most possibly rightly so. It would be interesting
to see your analysis as to whether the group who voted for has a similar identity,
and whether there were similar interests which voted in an opposite direction..
For myself, I'm on the Thomist, neo-Leibnitzian wing, as you know.

MM


Eric Brunner wrote:

> [This is just my aide de memoire, if anyone finds it helpful, great, otherwise
>  just discard it.]
>
> Anthony Lupo <AVLUPO@arentfox.com>,
> Caroline Chicoine <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>,
> Tod Cohen <Tod_Cohen@mpaa.org>
>         Position Paper C, while underspecifying any necessity condition for
>         new gTLDs, is specific as to three predicate conditions, and this is
>         the _presumtive_ vote rational.
>
> Annie Renard <Annie.Renard@nic.fr>
>         no more one commercial gTLD during a testbed phase
>
> Barbara Dooley <bdooley@cix.org> (cc'ing Petter and Rita)
>         operational environment, IP and trademark resolution, implementation,
>         and assessment come first, number is secondary.
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
>         operational commercial testbed undefined, assumes archaic conditions
>         alternate proposal for a non-commercial test, artificial but modern
>                 .marathon2000
>
> John Lewis <john.c.lewis@bt.com>
>         issues from IP and trademark resolution through to a framework for
>         new TLDs and Root Registry capability come first
>
> Keith Gymer <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>
>         no more than three (commercial?) gTLDs during a testbed phase
>         alternate proposal for a proof-of-necessity test for CORE proposed
>                 *.[new]
>         alternate proposal for a SLD utility test
>                 {bank,airline,pharmacy,...}.dir
>
> Kevin Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
>         no more than three (commercial?) gTLDs during a testbed phase
>
> Marilyn Cade <mcade@att.com>
>         go slow, and
>         trademarks, consumer confusion, education and awareness, stability,
>         consumer fraud, and
>         consideraton of the role and involvement of ccTLDs come first
>
> Martin Schwimmer <martys@interport.net>
>         three predicates from C come first
>         alternate proposal two TLDs with specifics (registrar, operator)
>
> Michael Palage <mpalage@infonetworks.com>
>         no more one commercial gTLD until demonstrated success of safeguards
>         from WG-B
>         Co-Chair Working Group B
>
> Otho Ross <Attyross@aol.com>
>         no more one commercial gTLD during a testbed phase
>
> Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se>
>         three predicates from C and environment and implementation issues
>         come first
>
> Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
>         purpose and principles come first
>
> Rita Odin <OdinR@arentfox.com>
>         evaluate UDRP and legislation, famous names, universal database, etc.,
>         come first
>
> William Semich <bill@mail.nic.nu>
>         potentially adverse effect upon non-G-7 ccTLD registries and ISPs
>
> Intentionally left blank:
>         Bob Broxton <Broxton@erols.com>,
>         Matt Hooker <matthooker@rocketmail.com>,
>         Scott Pollard <BEARSEVEN@aol.com>
>
> Error reporting is not manditory, but if I've missed anyone I didn't mean to,
> or gotten something substantial wrong, or overlooked something critical, I'd
> appreciate the correction(s).
>
> Cheers,
> Eric

--
_____________________________________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
privileged.  If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not
copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
form whatsoever.  If you have received this e-mail in error please
e-mail the sender by replying to this message.
______________________________________________________________________