[wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on non-shared gTLDs)

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

Rick,

My suggestion to you (again, to avoid some dreary WG-C "event" which now
that Milt has chimed in, is beyond avoiding) is to ask the Registrar
Constituency to answer your question, assuming it both clear and useful.
I pointed out to you that your question could use some improvement, economic
handwaving being preferable (IMO) over trolling absolutism.

Please do that then get back to me on your odd suggestion that the least
prudent handwaving is the better handwaving, or more starkly intellectually 
vacuous, that the compelling policy issue before WG-C is both registrant
maximization, yet we are not charged with, nor have yet discovered that this
only requires a single new gTLD, distinguishable from .COM in name only.

[I've considered writing "Position Paper Z", a "sink the (NSI) Bismark" since
 early November, but who in WG-C actually cares about the monopoly other than
 the PPD co-signers? Who would give up what they are so quick to try and take
 from Indians, to act sincerely on their principles, not just the agreeable
 bits of their principles?]

Now, there are 10^4 Indigenous polities in North America, 10^5 corporations,
non-profits, schools, etc., some 3x10^6 Status Indians, and another similar
size Non-Status population, and while Kent Crispin is the only co-signer of
Position Paper E in WG-C, the privileged population of North America is not
dominated politically by its racists, so if operated rationally the .NAA
registry should reach approximately 10^7 registrants. When I wave my hands
about the 10^5 number, I'm just being prudent.

However, was size ever the issue? We (Indians) are certain it is who has
policy responsibility and what that policy is that are the issues.

Rick, you do recall that Meuller, Ambler, Walsh and Meyer, all Americans,
all opposed any extention of the namespace to American minorities? You do
see where the registrar-centric undistinguished volume maximizing market
preference will lead ICANN, if allowed? Where "market principles" will lead
ICANN, if allowed?

You'll want to put two rounds behind the ear of the geographic diversity
principle in passing, if you plan on going dowm the volume-first rathole,
and anything else that gets in your way.

For the forseeeable future, the "general internet community" is both white,
and US resident. If it were in fact otherwise, WG-C would be a so much more
interesting place to think and work.

Kitakitamatsinopowaw,
Eric