I've read them all, and like I said, in a battle between two groups in the public eye, a slam on one (negative campaigning) is also viewed as a positive for the other, and there are lots of examples of you hammering on the non-ICANN/ICANN critics side.
That's clear bias in reporting, and you're far too good a writer to actually type something simplistic and damning as "I believe the ICANN price increases are an excellent idea and I fully support their proposal.", so please stop it right there. You're a good writer, so you do the same thing in much more inventive ways, like...
Outlining the operating budgets of some of the larger non-profits critical of ICANN, contrasting those with the frugal PIR's "fees are currently under $10 per domain per year.", and then after individually posting the 100's of millions each of these huge non-profits take in, ending with a smug "Limited resources indeed."
Hopefully you can see that as a tad unfair as a) 99.99% of non-profits never even sniff this kind of money and b) these "big charities" were obviously also speaking for the "little charities" without the extra time, money or manpower to speak for themselves.
I say again that I do not support, nor have I expressed support for, the lifting of the price caps nor price increases in general. I say again that you have not provided a scrap of evidence that I do.
Just because I have not written a polemic against the proposal, does not mean I support it.
Just because I have no personal interest in the proposal, does not mean I support it.
Part of what I do on DI is point out hypocrisy, contradiction, and amusing irony. The "Incite" part of the brand is not accidental.
When organizations raking in tens/hundreds or thousands of millions of dollars a year, such as C-SPAN and National Geographic, complain that they (they themselves, not others of more frugal means) have "limited resources", I think that's a contradiction worth pointing out.
Fact is, what I've done over the last week is.
1)
Report that ICA has a letter-writing campaign that raises "good, valid questions" about pricing in legacy gTLDs, but which is unlikely to persuade ICANN to change its mind because it comes from a single interest group.
2)
Report that it's no longer an ICA-only campaign, as groups representing tens of thousands of non-profits weigh in.
3)
Report an isolated incident of a group actually supporting the lifting of caps, including a link to Allemann's preemptive rebuttal.
4)
Report the contradiction inherent in some extremely rich organizations pretending to be poor.
5)
Report my genuine surprise that the very ICANN community group supposedly representing .org's target market (the NCSG) is actually not opposed to prices increases. And that that group itself actually suckles on the PIR teat.
6) Correct an article when it became apparent I'd got something wrong.
7) At every stage, provide links to the public comment period for those who wish to comment, with to-the-hour warnings about how close the deadline is.
8) Encourage readers to get in contact with me if they've found interesting comments supporting either side of the debate.
9) Repeatedly attempt, unsuccessfully so far, to get PIR itself to comment on the controversy.
What you infer from the fact that I haven't followed the pack and posted a long, outraged rant about how I support price caps, is your business. I simply say your inferences are incorrect.
A reader could easily infer from my coverage that I'm subtly aiding ICA's cause. (other than privately swapping links to interesting comments with Zak, that would also be incorrect).
As I'm sure you know, I'm not shy about sharing my opinion on DI, if I have one I think is worth sharing. If and when I form a strong opinion about this story, I'm sure you'll be among the first to read it.
Thanks for being a reader.
