[ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
- From: Derek Conant <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700
- Organization: Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA) http://dnsga.org
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
The ICANN Board should take into consideration the demonstrated lack of
progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.
It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status within ICANN
is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
compromised or cheapened.
The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.
Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members voted (if I
am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected). It may be that
only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not understand the
process or representations.
It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
proof that it can effectively function at the SO level. With the
ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
community. The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase with the ICANN
Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show demonstrated
diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status. This
should then cause the international community to pull together in an
effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies necessary
for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
accelerate ICANN's international objectives.
My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
status without these requirements could destabilize the integrity of the
DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose momentum or
give up when they fail to work within the DNSO. The other
constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to want SO status
if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.
At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
within ICANN. I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
outside of the DNSO. I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
constituencies with valid consensus results. I explained that this is
what is probably needed first.
At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
parties. A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever) with a broad
scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
constituencies that produce valid consensus. In my opinion, this is
what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting for. And, to
protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything less from an
applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
represent the international community.
If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
ICANN/ccTLD contracts. Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
difficult obtaining funding. It could also make matters worse within
the ccTLD constituency.
The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO status. With all
of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and underdeveloped
organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
ICANN itself to become unstable.
DNSGA President and Chairman
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html