> The benefit of taking the copy-and-modify approach you suggest is that it
> has very, very strong compatibility with ICANN and, therefore, the ultimate
> in defensibility.
Defensibility to whom? ICANN?
> Any challenge to the DNSO's concepts and organizations
> necessarily accrue equally to ICANN itself.
Not at all, if the DNSO is incorporated separately.
> Hence it is unlikely that
> ICANN could fault the DNSO's concepts or organization.
Is that the goal - to avoid having ICANN find fault with the DNSO? Did your
daddy spank you a lot?
> I believe that all the downsides are inherent in the entire ICANN-based
> approach, whatever those downside might be.
I have never seen a more incoherent string of words written by someone on these
lists. You win the boob prize.
> Since we all are already stuck
> with whatever those downsides are, there is no INCREMENTAL detriment to
> having the DNSO copy them.
No one is stuck with anything, unless they either want to be or are too stupid
to negotiate what's best for them.
> To the extent that there might be benefit in
> seeking conceptual or organizational diversity (different structure,
> different venue of incorporation, etc.) those benefits are currently
> hypothetical.
Everything is currently hypothetical. Why accept other people's hypotheses?
> The nice thing about tight deadlines is that they create strong focus.
And confusion. And error.
> Consequently, hypothetical benefits look less interesting. Expedience
> looks more interesting.
Exepedience is always interesting to cowards.