[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting
[Tony: you sent this in HTML.]
Dave and Kent have always exhibited a centralist/socialist tendency, just as
we have always exhibited a distributed/capitalist tendency. That these need
not be diametrically opposed is something that ecapes them. I think that you
You bring up a very good point wrt liability. Those of use who carry our own
liability insurance are always covered. However, this may be one of the
reasons that WG-C or WG-B activity does not have wider participation. There
is also the other issue that an organization's liability insurance only
extends to the individual when that individual is speaking in conjuntion
with an organization (read your insurance policy) and NOT when that
individual speaks on their own (personal liability). This is one reason that
my position paper carries an MHSC copyright. My participation in WG-C and
WG-B is covered by MHSC and , as CEO, my liabilities are covered. I see no
evidnece where ./ICANN/DNSO/WG-C is providing liability coverage for their
Most of the participants of WG-B are lawyers and are quite well aware of the
issues, or so I presume. However, the same does not extend to WG-C.
As to Dave's point, he has already conceded that a single-instance proof is
not a proof. Other than FUD factor, I fail to see why he keeps resurrecting
the NSI boogeyman. To contend with BOTH of you, I see no difference, in
safety, between non-profits and for-profits. Both models are rife with
potentialy abusive behaviour, especially when they have exclusivity. It is
this exclusivity that I argue against. Tony, I know that you somewhat agree
with this, but your defensive fall-back behaviour keeps letting Dave back
you into a polar position via polar arguments. IOW, you keep buying into his
either/or scenarios which, having only a single-instance proof, are not
The real issue, that Kent, John, and Dave support, is one of exclusive
non-profit model vs. an inclusive mix of non-profits and for-profits. They
don't think a non-profit can survive in such an environment or they wouldn't
be arguing so vehemently for exclusion of for-profits. I happen to think
that they can, under proper management, but it does raise the "bar".
However, I have made well-known my lack of understanding wrt non-profit
operations (alien concept for me). What is also well-known is my willingness
to accept their (non-profits) co-existance.
This artificial polarization has been the biggest bone of contention in
these debates. The road to compromise is not one of blind acquiescence but
one of accomodation. I am perfectly willing to accomodate an inclusion of a
non-profit model if the non-profit proponents are willing to make the same
inclusion of a for-profit model. In my paper, I have already made such
R O E L A N D M. J. M E Y E R
Lead! ... Follow! ... Get out of the way!
------ Pick One!>
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of A.M.
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 8:35 AM
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: Jonathan Weinberg; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting
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
That's the way marketplaces work and respond against those that
would effect restraints. It's infinitely preferable to regulating