Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you just said. Would you be so
kind as to rephrase it in smaller words for me?

--
Christopher Ambler
Personal Opinion Only, of course
This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Brunner" <brunner@world.std.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting


> Christopher,
> 
> As you are not able to show unqualified acceptance of 6-10, as a member
> of the non-consenting party (apparently enjoying leadership defection),
> why is your opposition to "acquienscence" on some "least squares error"
> basis (no position paper precluded non-profit, or shared for that matter,
> registry forms) useful?
> 
> Doesn't the same principle require you to reject 6-10 as well?
> 
> Was there some inobvious way to read B so that if the rollout of 500 
> new gTLDs failed, and the a priori confinement of trademark to only
> those new gTLDs where the invisible hand of the market found rights
> to marks favorable also failed, that non-profit forms could only be
> deployed subsequent to, or contemporanious with, for-profit forms?
> 
> I understand your point that your ethnicity comes first, or at least
> before Indians, not a unique view to be sure, but your for-profit
> registry model has to be in the first cohort or none shall be deployed?
> 
> I gues this means we'll have to let Microsoft have first crack at the
> game, even if registration is automatic, and free (a la IE).
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric
>