Greg, all,
Although I agree with Alan that it is probably not the right question, I’ll answer it. And my answer is: Yes, I do support the 2/3 threshold. Not because I think it is a great idea, though I do not think it is a bad idea either.
No, my affirmative support is based on the fact that this is part of a negotiation, a compromise, where –if we do not want to get stuck in our trenches for the remainder of time- parties will have to move, concede some to the other parties.
So the problem it solves is the present deadlock, it is needed for a successful transition, supported by the GAC. And I do not believe in conspiracy thinking; the risk is minimal. We already have accepted similar and larger risks.
I have worked in many countries and have learnt both that it’s dangerous to alienate governments and that it can be very productive to work with them in a strategically clever way. When SIDN voluntarily signed a convenant with the Dutch government under
my lead in 2008, many of my international peers told me I was crazy to allow government involvement. It would be the beginning of a process that would ultimately lead to government control/takeover. I can now easily prove them wrong. Self-regulation prevailed
and .nl is one of the most successful, open, unregulated and safest ccTLDs.
What puzzles me (not intending to accuse anybody) is that is seems that many are saying that by agreeing to this, we would be ceding to governments, which we should not do. And one of the arguments they use, is that the US government would never agree
to this and the transition would fail.
So we can yield to one government (without protesting) as long as it is the US? It seems that this argument is mainly used by American nationals. Probably because the logic is less obvious to those from other countries.