RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

MEMORANDUM
July 24, 2001

At the Stockholm meeting in early June, the ccTLD managers present voted
unanimously to withdraw from the DNSO and form a ccTLD Supporting
Organization.  

The gTLD Registry Constituency of the DNSO recently formed a task force to
survey the contractual and other issues raised by the possible formation of
a ccTLD SO.  We ask the ICANN community to consider the following questions.

-- Chuck Gomes, chair, gTLD Registry Constituency

I.  Contractual questions

A.	Will it be a condition of creation of a new SO that the ccTLDs be
required to enter into a contract with ICANN? Will that contract require
compliance with consensus policies?  If not, especially with regard to open
ccTLDs, would that constitute inequitable treatment in violation of ByLaw
and contract requirements?
B.	What should be the relationship between a ccTLD-ICANN contract on
re-delegation to a general ICANN policy on presumptive right to renewal for
uTLDs (unsponsored TLDs) or sTLDs (sponsored TLDs)?

II.  Reasons to have SOs

A.	If the rationale for creation of a ccTLD SO is (at least in part)
based on ensuring the payment of fees to ICANN, would that rationale also
support creation of other SOs more directly reflecting the interests and
views of others who also pay a high portion of ICANN fees?
B.	If the rationale for a ccTLD SO involves assuring adequate
representation on the ICANN Board of those whose interests may diverge and
who are bound by contracts with ICANN, would that support creation of
numerous additional SOs to reflect the distinct interests of gTLDs, sTLDs,
registrars, registrants, etc.? 
C.	Are sTLDs sufficiently differently situated from uTLDs, with respect
to their contractual relationships with ICANN and the role of Sponsoring
Organizations in the development of policies, that they should have their
own SO? 

III.  Creation of policies

A.	If ccTLDs had their own SO, would domain name policy issues be
required to be referred, routinely, to two or more SOs? Will that increase
or diminish the difficulty of developing and documenting consensus policies?
B.	Would a ccTLD SO have multiple constituencies, allowing groups
affected by ccTLD policies to participate in ccTLD policy creation? 
C.	Would gTLD registries have input into ccTLD SO deliberations or
would ccTLDs have input into DNSO deliberations? If not, how would
disagreements be resolved?  Would the Board resolve such disputes? How would
consensus among affected parties be developed and documented?
IV.  Effect on the DNSO

A.	If a ccTLD SO were created, what structural changes in any remaining
DNSO would be necessary? 
B.	Would current contractual documents be required to be revised if the
Names Council no longer existed or if it was not a definitive source of
judgment on consensus policies impacting gTLD registries? Should gTLD
registries agree to any such changes?

V.  Board membership

A.	If a ccTLD SO were allowed to elect a specified number of members of
the ICANN Board, would that diminish the role of the DNSO in selecting Board
members? Would it increase the number of Board members familiar with
registry operations?
B.	Would creation of an sTLD SO increase the representation of the
"registry voice" on the Board? If sTLDs declined to continue to participate
in the DNSO, would that force the creation of a separate SO for each
category of registry?
C.	If the main job of the Board is to recognize documented consensus,
should Board membership be reallocated to assure that every group that could
prevent a consensus (or unmask a false claim of consensus) on important
policy issues has an appropriate voice?
VI.  Structural proposals

A.	What structural changes will make sense in light of ICANN's purpose?
B.	Should restructuring provide an occasion for reallocating fees and
costs across a wider array of groups?
C.	Should a restructuring lead to substantial innovations in meeting
structure and use of online deliberation tools?
D.	Would a realignment of interests around SOs, combined with separate
at large elections of a few Board members and the creation of an open forum
for public participation in each SO, help to resolve disputes concerning
representation of registrants and individuals, diminish complaints regarding
capture of the DNSO by particular constituencies and overlaps between DNSO
constituencies, fix the dysfunctional performance of the General Assembly
and Names Council, and remedy other problems?

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:01 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo


"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 
> The attached document is a memo from the gTLD Constituency that contains a
> list of questions that we believe need to be asked regarding the possible
> establishment of an ICANN ccTLD Supporting Organization.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
>  <<072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc>>
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
>                                                                      Name:
072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc
>    072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc    Type:
Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
>                                                                  Encoding:
base64

Please do not post documents in proprietary formats such as MS word.

Some of us "Don't do Windows". Even among those that do have one
or more Win-boxes about, many of us will not open such attachments
because of virus risks. Some systems automatically discard them at
the firewall.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html