[ga] NCDNHC/ccTLD love affair
Here is the text I quoted:
The NCDNHC supports formation of a body which would provide technical and
policy assistance, such as operations, domain name disputes, etc., and
necessary guidance in enhancing ccTLD registries in developing countries.
That the NCDNHC form a body which will help ICANN investigate violations of
the ICP-1 and RFC-1591 ccTLD documents;
That the same body be tasked with studying whether the current ICP-1 and
RFC 1591 documents need to be modified, supplemented, or replaced by a new
document which will ensure that the ccTLD administrators adhere to
community-based, community-supported, and neutral registry operations of
the ccTLD Registries in consonance with ICANN's policy of ensuring a
neutral gTLD registry.
The ccTLD contracts among ccTLD-ICANN-GAC should go through an appropriate,
open, transparent and documented consultation process with Local Internet
Community, which by nature includes various non-commercial organizations
and its members.
Therefore, NCDNHC, would like to propose that ccTLD contract should first
go through DNSO consultation in order to encourage local Internet community
discussion rather than negotiation among small group of people, ccTLD admin
contact, ICANN staff and representative from GAC.
I do not question anymore the vote of the ccTLDs concerning the voting
rights of the NCDNHC!
But I am sorry Roberto did not pick on my proposition to set-up a
WG-RFC1591-Review. This would be the best way to address all our pending
problems. The RFC-1591 should be our [users] updated White Paper. Like the
Constitution of the iCANN.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html