DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach

Dear YJ,

WG-C was highly factionalized, however the sentiment you have captured in
your comments on the relations between WGs and the NC was not unique to
any one of WG-C's factions. Had WG-C not been without a NC co-chair for the
last half of its working life, and its sole co-chair intent to move on to
other interests after mid-April -- and had the WG-C participants expected
their task to be ongoing at this point, then this sentiment would be made
much sharper than it has been. Personally I would have lead a motion to
sanction Philip Sheppard. However, the issue is only of interest if the NC
intends to continue the use of Working Groups, and desires continuity of
participants, and of course, WG-C may have been sui generis.

In addition, http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#III does not
contain a reference to a selection process or processes, as you noted in
your second item. As the submitter of a "Statement of Interest in Proposing
a New TLD" to the tld-interest ICANN mailing list (June 14th, 2000) I was,
and remain, acutely aware of this lack.

It isn't too late for the NC to adopt the recommendations of Kent Crispin
on the subject of selection process (or applicant mentoring), they remain
the best attempt in good faith to solve this vexing problem.

To motivate our concerns, we are aware of the fact that not only do most
members of the NC find the idea of Indians Nations requesting access to the
DNS root as peers of Colonial States, an idea in very poor taste, even if
aggregated, this view is shared by some members of the ICANN staff and its
Board. We are in effect betting on another view being held by the Board as
a whole. Resolution 00.34, adopting Recommendation RC 99-1, which declined
to identify fact or harm issues and asserted that there was no Indigenous
Group, only two individuals, is guidance that our bet is unlikely to pay

I'd like to comment now on your May 8th paper, as a former coordinator of
a Constituency proposal and former participant in WG-C and co-author of a
forthcoming "Proposal" written under the general and specific authorization
of the National Council of Indian Chiefs (NCAI) and individual Tribal and
Band Executives and Councils.

In "Developing Countries' Perspective Regarding wg-b and wg-c process" the
issue of systemic error arising out of Early Adopter preference is clearly
identified. Late Adopters in any guise, commercial, non-commercial, even
regulatory, educational and operational, "have been under-represented in
this process". Additionally, as your paper recognizes, cultural differences
favor parties intent upon expropriation, either of the ICANN process, or of
Intellectual Property, or of the notion that the very legitimacy of their
acts is not self evident and a settled matter of International or National

I really do wish you luck on getting a thoughtful reading on the situation
Developing Countries face as Late Adopters. Like yourselves, we came to the
table prepared to work for progress, preservation and necessary compromises,
but we're not happy with the seating arrangements. They ensure the divide
between the privilged Early Adopters and the unprivileged Late Adopters is
made worse, not better.

Eric Brunner
for the NAA Registry Group, Registrars, and Registrants

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>