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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

A couple of quick points.  I just drank a bunch of coffee (maybe .5 l) because I have a bunch of work to do before I sleep.  So should be focused elsewhere, however ..., who can focus?

I agree that the topic is complex, the problem is the current event is binary - either the Board will allow private gTLDs as expected for years by many of us or they will be stopped as some are advocating.  To me that means that this an occasion for advocacy and not for careful academic discussion - there will be time enough for that as the future unfolds.

In rereading the statement looking for offensiveness, i do not see some of the elements you see.  Certainly the language is a little stronger than I normally sign on to, but I do not find any occasion of personal attack. No names are named or even hinted at.  Rather I think it is attacking the arguments and the attitudes.  While calling them hysterical is a bit blunt, honestly, sometimes the prophesies of Internet doom really do seem a bit exaggerated.

Certainly if there are changes that could be made that would allow you to sign it, please let Milton, the holder of the virtual pen know.  Otherwise, I would very much welcome seeing a more academic statement on the complexities also submitted. I might even sign that one too.

Finally I have never seen the harm in letting the world see our hanging laundry.  We are not one of those tightly controlled SGs that do what our beloved leader tells us to do.  We do not have the unified front our sister SG in the NCPH often shows.  We are a group that has a multitude of positions; sometimes strong ones.  And when we disagree, we disagree in public.  That, for me, makes the times we do reach consensus so much more important. And so much more powerful.


avri

On 5 Mar 2013, at 00:16, Ron Wickersham wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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