RE: Xenophobia and sticking to the point - uncensored version

[Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>]

All

Sorry, I was cleaning the weapon when I accidentally fired.
Here comes the complete version:


Jim,

Thanks for the recapitulation.

You  wrote:

>1	If CORE wants to run a .shop/firm/whoopsy registry out of Geneva,
>	who cares?  The market will sort out whether this is an attractive
>	proposition.

We all agree on that.
About point 3. you wrote:

>3	If CORE wants to have all rights over all gTLDs forever, that 
>	is, to me at least, simply unacceptable.

Some people do like talking about this.
This statement does not exist neither in the gTLD-MoU, nor in the
CORE-MoU, neither have I heard it or read it from any authoritative
source in ISOC, POC, IANA, CORE, whatever else.
Nobody has ever considered this a possibility, except the few people
that waste bandwidth to post against it.
Now, if somebody is in favour of this solution (i.e. CORE take all
rights over all gTLD forever), can he/she speak now or can we bury this
absurdity forever?

>2	If CORE wants to take over com/net/org, whose registrants are 
>	overwhelmingly American, then that takeover needs to be justified,
>	and any transfer of the rights of this huge block of customers
>	to a distant jurisdiction needs to be justified.
><snip>
>The world doesn't need to replace NSI's monopoly with a cartel in Geneva.  
>
>Several COREs run along different models and located in different parts
>of the world would be a good replacement for CORE.  Even a duopoly, with
>NSI retaining com/net/org and CORE running the rest of the gTLDs, would
>be superior to CORE all by itself.

I already stated my point: we (ETSI) made our business case in the
hypothesis (which I personally consider very likely) that .com will stay
as it is, i.e. with NSI.
I already said that coexistence of NSI and CORE is not at all a bad
idea.
But in this case too, I find that heavy words (cartel, oligopoly,
a.s.o.) are used to cover the poor ideas behind: the inappropriate word
"cartel" is used against CORE because of lack of other arguments.
About having more COREs, this is another good idea used instrumentally
for the wrong cause. Again, Jim, having more COREs is not an issue at
all. There is nothing that prevent people from getting together and
build other organizations. As I said already to Bob Allisat, instead of
complaining about the present situation, get your act together and build
acceptable alternatives.
But what you want, is not to have other organizations in collaboration
with CORE, what you want is other organizations *replacing* CORE (see
your own post above).
You can try to get it, but do you really think it's feasible?

Roberto