Diane,
> I think it would be lovely and convenient for everyone, not just
> the business interests, if there were UDR for all TLDs.
I agree, if there *already were UDR it would be marvelous -- but that
implies there would have been years of convergence, ranks of
enlightened parties realizing they had to give up some of their
favorite edges for the sake of a greater vision, a broad public
acceptance that parochial head-in-the-sand (and king-of-the-castle)
postures were not sustainable ('scalable'). (Too bad those factors
fall into the 'procedural' black hole when only substance is spoken
here, eh?)
In plain language, its not the end result, but the process of
*retrofitting such an ideal on the present virtual land-rush which
brings out the venal and short-sighted and manipulative tendencies
in some -- and the paranoia of trying to deal with those folks in
others -- that makes 'getting there form here' so tendentious.
> The point is that everyone who has an interest that is threatened
> will need time to reflect and consider the alternatives. Part
> of accepting change is understanding the advantages and just
> plain getting used to it. The debate itself is part of the
> adjustment process.
Again, the cynic in me reads this as saying, "everyone who feels
the pinch needs time to accept the inevitable failure to consider
their particular situation. The 'debate' is just part of the hollering
and screaming as Procrustes gets to work."
More optimistically, of course, one says, 'What's done is done,
let's try to look ahead.' It's ironic nevertheless, dont you think, that
this vaunted global communication network doesnt seem to have
been recognized as appropriate to the process of letting the victims
*see what kind of boom is about to be lowered on them?
How much pressure, just for an instance, is WTO putting on
WIPO? From a certain point of view, a UDL might just be the key
to locking in the Grand Poobah, a uniform trade and investment
'treaty' (UTIT) -- and from that pov, a little bit of old fashioned local
legal juris*prudence might be worth putting up with, just to preserve
local employment, local economy, local education, local
environmental standards and other such detritus of an
unglobalized, illiberalized age? ('Independence' is one of the words
that was popular then, I believe.)
> IMHO, the sooner these interests are made
> a part of the debate, the more chance they have to ensure that
> it is fair to them and (just as importantly) the more time they
> have to understand the legitimacy of opposing views and come to
> an acceptance of the ultimate decision.
Can you say what you expected would be the timeline for not
merely "accepting the recommendations," but *adopting the MAC
report? Or is it that "there are only so many things this rather thin
group can do at any one time, and as important as they are,
[general membership] issues will have to wait"? Is a little patience
all we need, or should this become an agendum for the ALM-in-
exile?
kerry
