Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700, Derek wrote:
>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 ASO and PSO do not have constituencies so why should the ccSO?
Nevertheless this is an interesting point. Should the ccTLD
registries be the *only* component of a ccTLD SO?
This is worth considering before we get too far down the track.
>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.
I think you will find those 31 ccTLDs though comprise over 95% of
ccTLD domain names and probably 99% of ICANN funding through ccTLDs.
>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
On the contrary they have regional grouping, an international
executive cmte and a secretariat. They seem better organised than
even the DNSO arguably.
>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.
I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
far far more than they need ICANN. If the ccTLDs don't get better
representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
take their ball and play elsewhere.
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