<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 03/07/2014 1:10 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh1_3uAO1LMgT0RYSa=dgJAWK8F7QromA==TzPPiM8UGbw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 July 2014 00:23, Nicolas Adam <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com" target="_blank">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>A consensus is possible. They should write it. It's
their failure that they haven't. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Evan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>