At this stage they will get what they want, whether I (we) support it or
not I guess. They would not have faced opposition from groups
traditionally leaning towards enlarging the scope of IP if they would
have gone the route alluded to by Dan and by a few of us here, over the
years. They would not have gotten active support from those groups,
sure, but they [RC] would not have needed needed that support as the
groups traditionally leaning on keeping the bounds of IP in the bounds
of IP (us, and I would have like to think, ALAC as well ...) would not
have objected to it.
But they wanted to add some anti-competitive protection to their game I
guess. Doing that generated opposition from us, and garnered support
from other groups. And when today we reach a rough consensus that is not
unanimous, we can say that RC won a nice victory. I'm not an overly
moral kind of guy, I can appreciate the beauty of victory on its own and
I'm not gonna lament more then I already did on the fact they could have
been the good guy that we like to think they are. I value strategic
action a lot, and theirs was successful in the end.
However, the public interest served here is diminished by the
undermining of the bottom-up model, as well as by the over-reach of the
mechanism.
Nicolas
On 03/07/2014 1:10 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On 3 July 2014 00:23, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> A consensus is possible. They should write it. It's their failure
> that they haven't.
>
>
> A consensus involves all parties. Indeed, much of what is advanced
> already reflects GNSO positions. So why is the lack consensus at this
> stage their failure and not yours?
>
> It is not unreasonable to suggest that, since the NGPC is recommending
> a level of RC protection, that the onus is on those who don't like it
> to propose an alternative path. You're welcome to advocate outright
> rejection of any protection -- which appears to be the current
> position in the absence of an alternate proposal -- but I don't
> consider outright rejection to be in (my perception of) the public
> interest, and the ALAC position (and Board advice) is already on record.
>
> I also don't think that a flat rejection at this stage -- years after
> the conversations, bullying and eventual compromises began -- will
> succeed to influence the final decision making (as you know, consensus
> != unanimity). But the all-or-nothing gambit is yours to take.
>
> - Evan
>
|