Who posted it in its original form? On Mar 6, 2013 12:02 PM, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]> 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 > > >