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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
On 3 July 2014 00:23, Nicolas Adam <[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