Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] So, what's best for consumers? Anyone? Bueller?

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Seems a reasonable approach.  

Might be useful to measure the proposals that people submit against various 
models.  e.g the models we offered, plus additional ones that represent the 
models that various people say we missed.  I know Eric had a few in mind as 
well as a few other participants.  If, while we are collecting proposals, we 
also collect models to measure those proposals against, we may have useful 
tools for the ensuing conversation.

a.



On 1 Apr 2010, at 14:12, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 
> While I believe that the Doria/Mueller/Palage presents interesting cases, I
> would be hesitant in focusing the debate, at this point in time, to just
> this document. It would be interesting to work in "brainstorming mode" for
> another few days, so that we have more examples, more business models, more
> hypotheses, and once we have a richer scenario we can start discussing about
> what are the good and the bad points of each model.
> Just a suggestion.
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: Thursday, 01 April 2010 18:00
>> To: Michael D. Palage; 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] So, what's best for consumers? 
>> Anyone? Bueller?
>> 
>> 
>> Let me chime in to reinforce Michael's message - it would be 
>> useful to obtain responses to the hypotheticals we produced. 
>> Can that happen?
>> Even without formal responses, I think it advanced the 
>> dialogue and some interesting questions have been raised 
>> about private TLDs in particular. In my case for sure there 
>> is no interest in delaying. 
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. 
>> Palage [michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> 
>> While we have tended to disagree on many points as of late, I 
>> thought the one point we might be able to agree on was the 
>> survey jointly authored by myself, Avri, and Milton. The 
>> purpose of the survey was to show ICANN and the GAC, that the 
>> community clearly recognizes many different types of 
>> innovative models that have not yet been realized in the 
>> marketplace. Most importantly, many of the models/hypos were 
>> about "expanding" the use of the name space and not merely 
>> "duplicating" it.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, instead of being viewed as a mechanism that 
>> could gather data to support the continued responsible 
>> expanse of the name space, it has unfortunately been 
>> interpreted as a delay tactic. I agree with Milton that
>