[NCSG-Discuss] NCSG members and the closed generic issue

[Nicolas Adam]

I am somewhat of a newbie submitting comments and wouldn't know the 
proper etiquette outright, but I certainly think that the title 
accurately reflected an indeterminate number of NCSG members.

I, personally, am fine with the "Comments from a group of NCSG members 
..." and would even go so far as to say "In-depht comments of a group of 
NCSG members ..." so as to really point out the fact that the comments 
are subsantives and thorough, well thought out,. and frankly more 
developed and convincing than what the opposing views have been able to 
muster thus far.

Please note that the portrayal of this group as being a minority is 
guilty of the same politics of representation that it purports to accuse 
us of. The vast majority of members have yet to express themselves on this.

Some strong language could be taken out without jeopardizing my support 
to the comments. I unfortunately tend to agree strongly that the 
opposing side here has not thought this out appropriately. You will say 
that we most always feel like that towards opposing views, but it is 
more acute in this particular case. Please forgive this feeling.

Nicolas


On 3/4/2013 11:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sorry that you are disturbed about this statement.  I think, however, that because you disagree you may be reading more into the heading than is stated.
>
> -  It does not state that it is a NCSG statement - having submitted those, I know that if it were an NCSG Statement, it would  specifically state that this is a statement of the NCSG that has gone through the following process.....
>
> - It is signed by individuals
>
> - Yes it states that those submitting are NCSG members.  but it does not say we represent all of the membership
>
> However, I do think it is worth bending over backwards to keep from giving the wrong impression, which some seem to be taking.
>
> 1. - I suggest we change the title to say that it is a Group of NCSG member, and that a footnote be added that this statement does not represent the NCSG as a group. Perhaps
>
> Comments on ‘Closed generic’ TLD applications,
> submitted by a group of NCSG members*
>
> ....
>
> * While this is a collaborative effort of several members of the NCSG, it does not represent  an official statement of the group at large.  The NCSG is as split on this topic as the rest of ICANN.
>
>
>
> 2 - I sugest that we add a signature that says signed as individuals in our own right and not as represntaitives of the larger group.  Perhaps:
>
> s/Signed/Individuals (groups) have have signed onto this statement in their own right/
>
>
> Would this be satisfactory?
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 4 Mar 2013, at 21:36, Ron Wickersham wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> Dear NCSG members:
>>>
>>> A group of us, including so far Robin Gross, Avri Doria, Andrew Adams, Nicolas Adam and Brenden Kuerbis, have developed a comment with ICANN on the closed generic issue.
>>> You can read our comments at this Google docs link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tPuEELJ2y6-d0hwF_qPupQb0V5OEFpqkMwcApDRNZf0/edit?usp=sharing
>>> We can still add names to the list of supporters, or you could file a quick and easy individual comment with ICANN expressing your support for the statement after it comes out.
>> hi Milton and other signers of the document.
>>
>> i am disturbed by the title of the proposed submission as it implies an
>> endorsement of the NCSG.
>>
>> in reading the content of the document, it also suggests this is the
>> position held by a majority of NCSG stakeholders and fails to mention that
>> this issue has been one of the more lively topics on our mailing list with
>> contrasting/opposing views.  i especially find that the wording borders
>> on "bullying" when you state that "we find these claims to be hysterical..."
>> i don't recall hysterical language being used by dissenting views posted
>> on the mailing list.   i find the use of emotional language unpersuasive
>> and unfitting in a position document.
>>
>> would it be impolite to ask that the title be changed and the content
>> modified to limit the scope of general support/consensus implied on the full membership of the NCSG?
>>
>> -ron wickersham
>>