Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Mischaracterizing VI/CO positions - so you don't have to

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

...now then, Milton is more than able to respond for himself but this
statement "3. He errors in particular in characterizing the Free Trade
position  as without limitations. There are limitations, one of which is
the rejection of "harms" and compliance as a necessity."  misstates the Free
Trade position.

I recorded an unequivocal rejection of the DAG4 position and all the
derivative works as proposed very early in the cycle.  In regard to the WG,
it didn't require any sophisticated analysis, just the evidence of your own
two lying eyes, to see that we were witnessing a full bore engagement of
'the interests' in competition by other means.  Some clearly wished to
maintain the 'status quo'.  Others wanted to tweak it just enough to tilt
advantage their way.  Unfortunately  for both, they latched on to and used
the weakest argument imaginable; the cap on ownership.  It was done however
in such a way as would've made George Orwell proud.

Even before Sivas formalized the ideas that became the "Free Trade"
Proposal, we recognized that harms are not restricted to business models.
This position remains  unassailable in reason and fact.   We said that the
principles that should guide the implementation of new gTLDs - and central
to the Free Trade proposal - are:  1. Commit no harm 2. Enumerate the known
and anticipated harms 3. Factor for those yet unknown 4. Publish sanctions
for all harms. 5. Implement a compliance and enforcement regime that impose
sanctions with certainty where ever harms are caused.

To think the ICANN board cannot be wrong-headed on any matter is offensive
to reason.  If I think they were wrong in a certain posture and fail to
candidly recognize this I connive at error.

This remains my position.

 Carlton Samuels

===========================================================================


On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Antony Van Couvering <
avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> I was amused to see Eric BW slagging off the Free Trade Proposal (and
> Milton) to the technical community (
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/128559):
>
> A few highlights:
>
> -- Those who support the free trade position are "free trade ideologues."
>  (As opposed to the others, who seek only by their selfless efforts to
> improve the well-being of consumers...)
>
> -- "He [Milton] errors [sic] in particular in characterizing the Free Trade
> position as without limitations. There are limitations, one of which is the
> rejection of "harms" and compliance as a necessity."  (Really?  News to
> me... Although, stricto sensu, I do reject harms as a necessity, as we could
> get along very well without any harms.)
>
> What syntax!  What fun!
>
> Antony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>