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

[Ron Wickersham]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Ron:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> 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
>
> We are in violent agreement on that, but that issue is orthogonal to the closed generic issue. It is true that some of the critics of closed generics, who typically want to impose ever-higher obligations and requirements on TLD registries, whether in the name of "public interest" or "security" or "stability," have created and are continuing to create a situation where registry operation is needlessly limited to a small number of very large (and very politically well-connected) providers. By fighting off yet another attempt to advance that philosophy, the closed generic debate can stop things from getting worse.
>
>> 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.
>
> Exactly, that is why some of us are advocating a more flexible approach to how people handle TLDs.
> I still don't see why this would prevent you from signing on to the current statement

hi Milton and all,

after considerable consideration, with a desire to see the gTLD program
proceed as scheduled, it is with deep regret that i respectfully decline
to sign on to the statement (which i was surprised to see posted in the
ICANN comments in it's original form).

i did not find that the comments requested were limited to just two as
reported in your statement.   those two areas were suggested as "helpful"
in determining objective criteria to proposed solutions to this issue.

but the instructions to the President and CEO are much broader and have
5 areas in which public comments would be useful, so our group need not
limit our scope to just the two "helpful" areas.

i took the time to read every comment posted and consider the positions
which each person or organization advanced, and tried to fit them within
guidebook terms.

taking this quote from Section II of the call for public-comment:
 	The New gTLD Program has been built based on poicy advice developed
 	in the GNSO's policy development process.  The policy advice did
 	not contain guidance on how ICANN should place restrictions on
 	applicants' proposed registration policies, and no such restrictions
 	were included in the Applicant Guidebook.

getting out of this conundrum will take a better mind than mine.  i am
committed to following what's in the AG, but didn't expect this generic
word issue to arise, as the discussions that went into policy were about
.brand and recognized that possibility.   but the absence of policy should
not restrict our acknowledging that there is merit (or at least possible
merit) in the objections which have been expressed in comments and on the
mailing list.

this is not to suggest that i would support staff or the board taking
independent action to resolve the generic word issue.   that would also
go against my leaning.

so i am deeply conflicted and saddened that i have no constructive
words to help us out of the problem.

i congratulate you and Avri and the others who have taken a strong stand
and wish it were easy for me to join you.

i also encourage opposing views be submitted by others in our group.

i may put in an individual comment near the deadline if i can come up
with something helpful.

-ron