[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Unofficial minutes June 11 1999 Names Council Meeting
We have tried to be very clear about the fact that no actions, decisions or
working groups of the provisional Names Council are related to issues
dealing with ccTLD. There is a work plan from now to the November meeting
in which the issues that will be delt with are clear. We always post the
agendas for the meetings in advance. We are also very clear about the need
for public comment from the general Assembly on anything we plan to decide on.
The only policy issues that will be discussed from now until November are:
1) Conflict Resolution Policy for gTLDs.
2) Tratment of famous trade-marks for gTLDs
3) New gTLDs and the registry(es) that will handle them.
From the beginning we have asked that three observers from the ccTLD
community be included in the NC list. This has just not happenned, and we
cannot be blamed for it. You cannot either blame the NC for the way in
which the ccTLD representatives to the provisional NC have been elected, it
is strictly a problem of your constituency.
Our concern now is that instead of an attitude of working together agreeing
on the issues that we all work on, we seem to be in different sides with
the ccTLD constituency, and this should not be the case. I really believe
that we can agree on what to work on. That way we can assure, all together,
that the concerns of the overall ccTLD community are addressed.
Of course, I cannot talk for the rest of the NC, but I believe that there
is agreement on what I have stated.
At 07:17 29/06/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Javier Sola wrote:
>> > 2) All Constituencies have had a chance to elect their representatives.
>This statement is /not/ correct, I am afraid to say.
>The formation proposal of the ccTLD constituency submitted to and
>accepted by the ICANN board includes the provision to elect its
>representatives by a properly conducted one member one vote election of
>the entire constituency by the Single Transferable Vote; not just by the
>minority of ccTLD constituency members who had the time or the financial
>ability to attend the formation meeting in Berlin.
>The fact that we have last week appointed interim Names Council members
>who will serve until elected Names Council members can take their seats
>-- hopefully in time for Santiago -- is an unfortunate compromise.
>This compromoise has been forced on the constituency by fears that the
>'interim' Names Council would otherwise make significant decisions which
>might affect ccTLDs without any opportunity for ccTLD represtaatives to
>be involved in those becuase we have not yet had the opportunity to
>conduct these elections in the open and transparent manner which
>/everyone/ in our constituency agrees is important to the credibility of
>the entire process.
>This situation is quite undesirable, but pretty much unavoidable.
>So please don't make this claim that all constituencies have had
>chance to elect representatives -- the election periods for ccTLD
>representatives will start at the beginning of July.
>Eur.-Ing. Nigel Roberts, .GG Domain