I take it a large proportion of the multistakeholders, the gnso, and the ICANN board, 7 years of process etc, are all as wrong as Milton, are similarly not worth the time. I think it's telling in that interview I posted with Esther, when asked if she had contributed in any way to the discussions about new TLDs, she likewise had declined to bother. But to more pertinent questions, do you not agree that, as TLDs proliferate 1) while many will be unimportant, that some - like for instance .asia which allows trans-regional commercial identity - are going to significantly forward human progress, 2) that "protection racket" schemes will founder as the public becomes more sophisticated, major marks move to .brands, and the URS becomes a familiar process. 3) that the precise reason that the multistakeholder process was initiated in the first place was to avoid EC style shenanigans of the type Milton describes? j On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:28 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Where is the public benefit in 1) restricting TLds to the current monopoly,
in acquiescing to an ITU-style government takeover on behalf of big business?
Nothing personal, but it's clear from the way you've phrased your question that there's nothing I could say that you would listen to, so I won't waste anyone's time.
R's, John
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -