Don't disagree with any of that. I just didn't want the simplifications to detract from the real issues. Regarding Kurt, perhaps that is his blindness, or perhaps he was there to defend ICANN and that is what he did. Alan At 09/12/2011 06:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Nobody that I know disagrees with the concept of having at least a few more gTLDs, if only to address the artificial scarcity problem (that is arguably of ICANN's own creation).

Everyone likes the concept. Many don't like the execution.

Yes, I generalized. I don't have the cycles to write the level of detail the issue might otherwise command. But I stand by my overall assertion that ICANN (and Kurt specifically in his testimony) glosses over the level of opposition and cynicism regarding the program, which notably includes the two bodies ICANN has said exist to protect the public interest; the GAC and ALAC. And I support the comments made earlier by Garth.

And please spare the "perfect is the enemy of the good" rationale. To me this is more like "the barely tolerable is the enemy of the disasterous".

- Evan

On 9 December 2011 17:43, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I've excerpted a paragraph from Evan here, but I am really addressing a wider issue that his specific comment.

I think that we need to be a bit carful with generalizations. For example:

- NCUC was not opposed to the entire concept. They were very much opposed to some particular aspects, the morality issue being arguably the largest one. Some within the NCUC advocated a FAR looser structure than we now have, with minimal rules, processes and fees.

- IPC has generally supported the concept, of new gTLDs, nut wanted a lot more (and stronger) rules regarding trademarks and (in their mind) related issues.

So yes, many parts of the community were opposed to specific aspects of the program. But it is important to note that in many cases, issues that various parties were unhappy with were in direct opposition to issues that some other segment of the community strongly advocated. The only way to address all of the concerns would be to not have any new gTLDs, and yet a very large part of the community (including At-Large) felt that new gTLDs were crucially important.

Alan

At 09/12/2011 03:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

So the NCUC was opposed. ALAC was opposed (see below). The GAC was opposed. The IPC was opposed, and clearly not appeased by the IRT and STI efforts. And the CADNA/ANA opposition indicates that either ICANN's business community was opposed, or that it is unrepresentative of the broader business community (perhaps because it is an umbrella that equally includes both domainers and Internet content providers.)

------ NA-Discuss mailing list <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at <http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org ------