[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Comments
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner" <email@example.com>
> I'm expecting a "ballot-stuffing" or "unqualified comments" allegation
> Milton Meuller but I don't plan to give it much thought.
Your expectations are wrong. They are based on your unfortunate and somewhat
immature perception that my positions in this working group are based on
personal animosities rather than policy and principle.
This is a public comment period, not a vote. There is no such thing as
"ballot-stuffing" (unless you invented the names and email addresses of the
respondents, which neither I nor anyone else I know of thinks you did.) The
larger the number of members of the public who comment, the better. I think
the comments demonstrate a legitimate and impressive degree of support among
the native american groups for the .naa TLD.
I would add only two qualifications to that. First, the PPE comments only
prove that there is a strong desire among a particular, well-organized
community for a TLD of its own. I submit that there are hundreds of such
groups around the world. Most of them simply are not as plugged into the
process and have not been preparing for it for everal years, as you have.
Second, the PPE comments, unlike most of the comments made regarding other
papers, have no bearing on the basic policy decisions facing us, such as how
many, what policies, what administrative model, trademark, sharing, etc.
None of the pro-PPE comments addressed those issues, and indeed none of the
commenters showed any evidence of having read the other position papers.
Thus, while I accept those comments as evidence of support for a native
american run TLD, the comments as such are not incompatible with support for
other position papers.
In fact, the real winners in this process are papers A and B, both of which
are compatible with the comments supporting PPE, both of which call for
large numbers of new TLDs and a fairly light-handed way of introducing them.
The clear outcome of the public comment process is that support for
restraint on new TLDs is confined entirely to a few large intellectual
property holders. ISPs, international interests, registrars, noncommercial
commenters, academics, and a few members of the public all called for moving
forward with additions to the root.