RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

[vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET>]

I think a proposal to the board for creation of a new SO would be
one reasonable path.

Vint

At 10:23 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
>Vint,
>
>Perhaps I should be more clear.  I agree that the Bylaws allow for the
>creation of additional SO's.  By the wording of the Bylaws, there appears to
>be only one *process* defined that would initiate the consideration of
>another SO, namely a Staff Recommendation.  The Bylaws state:
>
>"(b) The Board may amend the Bylaws to create additional Supporting
>Organizations if it determines, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of
>the Board, that it would serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event
>of a staff recommendation that an additional Supporting Organization should
>be created, the Board will post the staff recommendation on the Web Site,
>including a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
>desirable, set a reasonable time for the receipt of public comments, and not
>make a final decision to seek the consensus development of such additional
>Supporting Organization until it has taken into account all such comments."
>
>All other considerations rely upon a vote of the board.  However, there is
>no clear process as to how that consideration by the Board may be reached.
>Is there a method by which the Board would be enacted to review such a
>consideration?  Petition?  Formal letter? etc.?
>
>Gene...
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vint cerf [mailto:vcerf@mci.net]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:46 AM
>> To: Gene Marsh; Derek Conant; ga@dnso.org
>> Cc: icann-board@icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>>
>>
>> There is a process for SO creation and it is found in the ByLaws
>> (section 3 in Article VI Supporting Organizations).
>>
>> there should be a copy of the bylaws on the www.icann.org
>> website. New constituencies in the DNSO can be initiated by  by
>> petition or by board-initiated action (see Article VI-B, section 3(d)).
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  At 09:09 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
>> >Vint,
>> >
>> >Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the
>> creation/acceptance
>> >of an SO?  I was of the impression that there was no such
>> defined process,
>> >even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.
>> >
>> >If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
>> >formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.
>> >
>> >Could you please clarify?
>> >
>> >Gene...
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
>> vint cerf
>> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
>> >> To: Derek Conant; ga@dnso.org
>> >> Cc: icann-board@icann.org
>> >> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Derek,
>> >>
>> >> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
>> >>
>> >> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
>> >> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
>> >> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
>> >> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
>> >> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
>> >> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
>> >> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
>> >>
>> >> Vint Cerf
>> >>
>> >> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
>> >> >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
>> >> >international community.
>> >> >
>> >> >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.
>> >> >
>> >> >Derek Conant
>> >> >DNSGA President and Chairman
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> >> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> >>
>>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html