Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More)

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> John,
> A nice piece of writing.

Thank-you.

> One could reasonably view (my) position as:
> 	1. opportunistic, and adding to the already quite difficult clutter,
> 	   and at least positioning "one community" for early access in the
> 	   next round (see Kent's suggestion in PPD, which I co-signed), or
> 	2. non-opportunistic, expanding the scope of policy and jurisdiction
> 	   for TLDs from "none/all" (modern NSI TLDs) and "none/state", to
> 	   "non-trivial/non-state", e.g., "trademark-lawyers/hell", or
> 	3. non-opportunistic, expanding the methodology of new TLD evaluation
> 	   from hypothetical considerations to something as breathtaking as
> 	   sticking a finger in one's nose and creating one, and iterating
> 	   this messy act in the belief that improvement will follow, or
> 	4. only the first of several advocates for competing "Indian" (or
> 	   marks-lawyers-in-hell) registries.
> 
> Where I'd try and change your analysis is on the 4th point, as it isn't, as
> Milt in a rare moment on acerbic insight in what is otherwise a lunatic
> cyber-charade of the new-tech market, a given that the NAA proposal is not
> going to face competition from within what you view as "one community".

I would presume that if ".naa" is a well thought proposal then the community
of indigenous american nations would be happy for this TLD to exist, and
would be in general happy for whatever entity you advocate to control it
(ie, that consensus within that community exists for wanting it the way you
present it). It *is* after all (unless I've missed the point completely) a
TLD for indigenous american nations, so I think that one should presume that
the community (although it is a very diverse community of course) of
indigenous american nations would have consensus to want it the way you
present it. Be careful to note that I am not so narrow minded as to group
all indigenous americans as just one group, but it IS what the purpose of
this TLD seems to be in any case. AFAIK the jury is out on if this is
useful or not. Personally I would just say, hey, if the community of I.A.N.
decides that they want/need/would be happy with this, they should be
entitled to it. Please don't ask me to quantify when a group should be
entitled or not, because I'm not sure on that, which is why I'm sceptical
about the general workability of chartered TLDs, and just prefer to stay out
of that particular battle.

> Fundamentally, I read your think-piece as assuming that any non-trivial
> charter exhausts the policy/scope/business-model of the market, hence that
> these really "look like" ccTLDs. Delegate once, forget forever. I don't
> think this will prove true.

? Well, that *should* be the point of a chartered TLD, shouldn't it? If
ICANN were to delegate ".naa" to you, would you look kindly on them
interfering about how you run it? Which again is why I think that there is a
rather messy can of worms being opened by this as it really has to be made
sure it is done right first time...

> If you'd like to point out the areas where two extremes of the policy/locality
> model differ, I'll be happy to try and suggest how the difference may be the
> result of assumptions which may not be true.

Damn, you've done it again :-) Can you repeat that last paragraph a little
clearer please as I don't understand it. (not trying to be funny).

(...)
> Philip votes against _generic_generic_generic_ gTLDs.
> Dave, John, and others vote against _chartered_chartered_chartered_ gTLDs.

No Eric, I do NOT vote against chartered TLDs (g is for generic in my book).
I have no problem in ".naa" being put in the legacy roots. I wonder if it
won't create tension and problems WITHIN the I.A.N. community, which is why
I pose all those questions above, but I do believe that to be an internal
matter for that "community" (or conglomerate of communities) to resolve.
I object to mixing these TLDs as I consider them completely different
animals. Linking inclusion of one to the other is asking for trouble. I
presume that you will agree in general terms that the issues to be resolved
are those that I pointed out. They are completely different worlds (the
issues).
I would vote for something along the lines of 6-10 gTLDs to be introduced
initially, and have a recomendation from somewhere else (subworkgroup of
WG-C?) to take care of the chartered TLD issue (which might recommend also
6-10 chartered TLDs to be introduced initially). Just keep them separate. 
I can't see the constructiveness of forcing both together.

Am I for or against the political system of Tuvalu? No idea, just not
bothered by it one way or another and don't want to get involved. I am sorry
if you are offended by the fact that I am not militant in defending the
creation of ".naa", but do not take that to mean that I want it NOT to be
created. I hope you understand my thoughts a little better.
Yours, John Broomfield.