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

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

> In the recent round of discussion, the REASON
> that doing a not-for-profit first was stated simply and
> directly.

Sure, it is called restraining the market, and very appealing
to socialists and those who would benefit by manipulating the
market to their advantage.


> Care to provide the reason(s) that a
> for-profit is "safer"?

Significantly less liability for the corporation and the
participants - which raises the question of whether ICANN's
liability coverage extends to Working Group participants, and
for what amount.


> To prime the pump, please note that current
> experiences show that a for-profit is quite good at holding customers and
> ICANN hostage to its market power.

That's the way marketplaces work and respond against those that
would effect restraints.  It's infinitely preferable to
regulating
the marketplace.

--tony