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

[Mark Leiser]

Who posted it in its original form?
On Mar 6, 2013 12:02 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I apologize.
>
> I did not realize that it had already been submitted while we were
> discussing it.  I must admit, I am rather disappointed to see that it had
> been submitted in its original form as well.
>
> avri
>
> On 6 Mar 2013, at 02:47, Ron Wickersham wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130306/07efb9c5/attachment-0001.html>