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 >