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

[Ron Wickersham]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 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

hi Avri,

thanks for considering the changes.   yes, the simple changes you suggest
make it clear that the statement is not an official statement of the group
reached by consensus.

i am not diametrically opposed to many of the points raised, but am 
conflicted on details outside the scope of the statement such as the
extreme cost for registry qualifications that are uncompetitive since they
constrain applicants to large organizations where i have felt that the
running of a gtld could be handled by a reasonably technically copentent
small group (or even individual) and if they fail, i don't see how the
failure of a new gtld destroys the stability of the whole DNS structure.
yes, if the registry for .com failed it would affect a large number of
domains, but a "brand" or "community" gtld which is small in seond-level
delegations would only affect those delegations and not the whole Internet
infrastructure.

so it's sort of a "devil in the details" in my case more than being in
disagreement with the position stated.  i am personally attracted to
aspects of both sides (if this complex issue can be boiled down to only
two sides).

but i am wondering outloud about posting conflicting "Comments of NCSG
Members ..." by more than one group of NCSG stakeholders.  it is in the
best interest of our whole group to publish two "group" statements
each with strong language on the public comments ICANN site?    i don't
see a problem with individuals or groups of group members stating a 
position publicly if the arguments are more neutral in tone, stating the
position and justifications why those positions are held by the members
  of the signing group.   but if the strong or emotional language is used
to attack the people opposing (not the position opposing) and we issue
two (or more) such statements which could have identical titles, does
this best represent the public impression we want to have our group and
our position(s) held by other stakeholders, staff, and board of ICANN?

-ron