Re: [wg-c] ballot stuffing

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Dear Readers,

I have been (generally) keeping quiet, because 
the press of my law practice and certain other 
internet-related activity has preoccupied my 
attention of late.  I think it also bears mentioning 
that I did not prepare a position paper because 
several members of the WG (members for whom 
I have the utmost respect) told me in no uncertain 
terms that my idea was a non-starter or so obviously 
a CORE put-up job, or so patently an anti-CORE 
job, that it was not worth discussing.  And, indeed, 
the proposal I have floated in this WG seems not 
to have been taken seriously by any participants in the process.

That actually reinforces my thinking that I may 
actually have it right :-)

This note, however, is motivated by a different 
consideration, namely, that of being attacked 
as a no-compromise unthinker by a participant 
whose characterization by me would certainly 
be counterproductive. 
>
>>>> "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net> 12/10/99 04:53PM >>>
>
>Hello Rita,
>
>I think it was worth noting that so far all of the "No" votes have a common thread, and
>that indeed they have a common motivation.  
>
>Whereas in the "yes" votes we have a broad base of opinion, people who would have a hard
>time agreeing that the sky was blue normally.
>
>Those voting yes have, for the most part, had to make vast compromises in their own
>hardfast opinions to consent to this, in an effort to move forward and have progress.
>Those voting no obviously do not feel they can be a part of a compromise.

This "no" voter is deeply concerned about 
what we are doing.  As Cromwell said in 
another crisis, "I beseech ye, in the bowels 
of Christ, bethink ye might err."  Once a TLD 
is added to the root, it will be like kudzu:  it is 
not going to go away.  The process is unidirectional, 
like time, and therefore the occasion for preventing 
irreparable damage is *before* the mistake is made.

>
>Fine, that is their right, but don't expect it to go unnoticed, or for others, such as
>Dave or the rest of us, to comment on it.
>
>It helps the others who may be on the fence to put the votes into perspective, and see
>the common thread behind those who are "dissenting."

Fence sitters should not be misled into thinking 
that anyone who votes "no" on the consensus 
poll is opposed to the addition of TLDs to the root.  
Those who have taken the time to listen to me 
know I firmly support the unrestricted growth of 
the TLD namespace.  Let a myriad TLDs bloom.  
But let us not give the trademark community the 
opportunity to dismiss us as a bunch of loons.  
Information does *not* want to be free, and 
trademarks *are* valuable property.  

Whatever else we may say about domain names, 
it is disingenuous in the extreme to ignore or try 
to suppress the fact that domain names have an undeniable 
intellectual property content.

It is also political suicide for those of us who wish 
to see the TLD namespace grow luxuriantly to 
ignore the trademark community.  Their fears 
have squashed the process before.  Their 
economic resources are quite capable of 
doing it again.

To reiterate:  6-10 is both too many and too 
few.  It is too many to serve as a true 
testbed or proof of concept operation.  Proof 
of concept could be accomplished by 
adding .nom, .per, and .mus to the root 
and seeing what happens.  It is too few to
preclude the holders of the new domains
from exercising monopoly powers in the domain
name market.  Let us not impose a preconceived 
path on the future of the Internet.  Let us instead 
make the least dangerous set of changes.  
Primum non nocere is a rule of medicine and 
should be a rule of political decision-making 
where the potential for enormous, 
long-lasting mischief is undeniable.
>
>
{snipped Rita Odin's response to Dave Crocker's post}

Kevin J. Connolly
Verbum sapientiae satis est.
Encyclopedia stulti non est satis.
Sapientiae, non stulti, esse.
The opinions expressed are those of the author, 
not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************