-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks Bill. GNSO Councillors have to try and represent constuents
views - at present I'd sum those up on this topic as: divergent.
I note that the NCUC submission on new gTLDs and human rights last
year (which is available here) http://t.co/tEUIN4Ho emphasised a
rights based approach including:
* general starting point of rights and freedoms
* no, or narrow, limitations on freedom of expression
* where applications conflict, prioritising those that would best
promote and protect vulnerable or marginalised groups
* where multiple rights issues arise ICANN should favour availability
and take the most rights affirming and least rights intrusive approach
I favour taking a rights based approach in each case, rather than
focusing on whether "closed" vs "open" generics are permissible per se.
On balance, while I don't agree with all of the Independent Objector's
reasoning (and I haven't read all his notes) I think he has clearly
tried to take (and indeed has taken) a measured approach - and I
support his conclusions in relation to dotgay for example. And I am
very glad we have a process by which they can be added to this process.
Joy
On 18/03/2013 7:18 a.m., William Drake wrote:
> Hi Milton
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Important lesson for all NCSG members: People who get on the GNSO
>> Council often absorb assumptions and attitudes about policies
>> that are contrary to our principles and not fully supported by
>> either the membership or our stakeholder group. It's very easy to
>> do, I know because I've been there. You engage in intense
>> discussions with the other councilors and SGs. The paremeters of
>> your thinking start getting constrained by what the others
>> think. You start thinking, "well no one else supports this or
>> even thinks about it in a principled way, so why bother to
>> challenge it." Case in point, Mr. David Cake:
>
> An alternative explanation that's a bit less arrogant and
> condescending might be that your adult colleagues are capable of
> arriving at reasoned opinions even if you don't agree with them.
>
> Personally, I can fully understand why people in South American
> might not be thrilled to have the names of regions that are
> integral to their history, lived experience and collective
> identities appropriated and conflated with some products marketed
> by, um, wealthy Norteños. Trying to make it all about evil rent
> seeking states doesn't shed much light when those states are
> defending positions that would be adamantly supported by most of
> their publics if they knew this is going on. I'm not opposed to
> closed generics in principle, but in some cases I do think they can
> be problematic, and here I'd rather amazon and patagonia just get
> on with life under .com (as they do now, apparently not too
> repressed) with its plainly commercial selling stuff connotations.
> But of course, I was on Council too, so perhaps I'm a brainwashed
> ninny incapable of rational thought…:-)
>
> How would folks in your neck of the woods feel if someone got
> .syracuse in order to market, I don't know, anti-Santorum products?
> You'd tell them sides of the dot don't matter, the GNSO council
> decided not to worry about this some years ago, etc? And that'd
> settle the matter?
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRRoo1AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqyxwIALlqKz2pMoHElH9yRaiJfDXX
aQGqUP1g3bPLa+M59z7qguan+Hlfq+8Fuk33M5xW/xu5jQ1rqnkKzrC5jc+Klfvw
VApVE4PGgWyl9Br7Dn68rpbyublQxuGkz9AJsZI86LE814k401NC1/rSeux1Q2Pk
xs3FWBpPqC6h69BGq/1JTFspCCiDBjX+E0NOxmm+0QpMiBRa3PsGgU/6Sn8zvSfU
+pYt6Fp0YaXV9sKfSKZlozJcP+A/d+x2UPFHNK7agIoGvcTnaeX9xI8eCv+TeB02
Y1dsG08ugDva1InCDcaqZFwt44sxYr9ELZsWLrEXiHYXVnSmdqvqZrK7pAba/Go=
=oSC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
