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

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

John,

I don't actually need militant Tuvaluvians, thanks for the offer, but I will
take a box of Girl Scout cookies if you can spare those. Mints please.

> If you'd like to point out the areas where two extremes ...
	
We've been stuck with a model which has two aspects, the NSI TLDs and the
ccTLDs. At an earlier point in time the NSI (and IANA) TLDs had policy to
define them, ISPs in .net, 501(c)(3)s in .org, and communists in .com. At
some earlier point in time all the ccTLDs had territorial jurisdictions to
define them, .ie for the Irish, .us for an idle tree, and .tu for militant
Tuvaluvians. Over time the NSI TLDs have lost their policy definition, and
some ccTLDs have lost their territorial jurisdictional definition.

Non-unique TLDs for territorial jurisdictions is awkward, and unique TLDs
for policy definitions is also awkward. We've none of the former, and the
NSI monopoly is the instance of the latter.

Is it possible to have stronger policy than "none"? Yes. Hence all of our
discussions of charters or sponsored or ... policy.

Is it possible to have other scopes than political geography? Yes. We've
got one already (Antarctica), the EU is in the wings, and scope could be
as useful as (northern hemisphere) circumpolar, or international-waters.
Hence all of our (outside of WG-C) discussion of jurisdiction, or lack of.

Now, if you posit that some charter ought to exhaust the viable space of
policy/scope/business-model, hence a fundamental difference exists between
the two extremes of policy/locality models, then I think you err. To use
.NAA as an example:

	policy			scope			business-model
	------------------------+-----------------------+-------------------
	treaty (t)		US&CA			not-for-profit (n4p)
	t+status (s)		US or CA or US&CA&MX	n4p or 4p
	t+s+resident (r)	North America		n4p, 4p, US/CA tax
	t+s+r+other-indig (o)	NA+trust areas		n4p,4p,tax,UN fund
	...

There appears to be quite a few service and business propositions available
to compete with which ever one is "first". The words "Treaty" and "Status"
are terms of art in Federal Indian (US) and Aboriginal (CA) law, concerning
identity.

My point is that the claim made (charters exhaust markets) is not convincing,
I could compete with myself if the nurses wouldn't give me so much medication.

Thanks for clearing up the final point where I attempted to distinguish
between Philip's vote (and voting history and block membership) and yours
and Daves.

Cheers,
Eric