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