DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: gTLD Constituency Memo

Dear Chuck,

Thank you for forwarding the questions posed by the gTLD constituency Task 
Force (on the ccSO formation) to the General Assembly for its review and 
consideration.  We appreciate the courtesy and look forward to ongoing 

Let me continue the discussion with a parable:  A homeowners association 
decides to create a luxury apartment building... They engage an architectural 
firm which hires a number of contractors to get the job done and which pays 
them as required.   One day, some of the contractors (who handle a sizable 
amount of work) decide that (for various reasons) they will withdraw from the 
Builders' Association (which hasn't been sufficiently responsive to their 
needs) and will form their own Union in order to better engage in collective 
bargaining.   They then demand seats on the Architectural Firm's Board (the 
unspoken challenge being that if their demands are not met, they will no 
longer work on this Apartment Building).  Under normal circumstances, the 
Architect would first consult with his firm, and then report the labor 
difficulties to the Homeowner's Association.   But in this particular case, 
the Staff of the Architectural Firm is implicated in the problem (as revealed 
by a press release from the new Union:  "Members have previously noted the 
call from the Staff that we should form a peer organisation").

How should the Homeowners Association deal with the Architectural Firm if it 
can no longer technically coordinate the project?  How should the 
Architectural Firm deal with its meddling staff?  Should Union demands be 
met, or should the Firm act to bust the Union?   What happens to all the 
other smaller and larger contractors that have faithfully lived up to their 
end of the contract -- will there be equitable treatment for all?  

Here's another way of looking at the problem...

an analogy..., consider the possibility that one-eighth of the members of the 
gTLD constituency (let's say the NSI Registry, by way of example) voted to 
withdraw from the DNSO in order to form a separate SO...  (this would be 
comparable to the 31 out of 240+ ccTLDs having voted to withdraw).

This would leave seven-eighths of the constituency members still in the DNSO. 
 Given this to be the case, why should the Board (using this example) 
consider granting SO status to NSI, the break-away group?  

Yes, like the ccTLDs, NSI could argue (paraphrasing the language in the ccSO 
Formation Statement) that 'the absence of Board representation, and the 
unlikeliness of this occurring, despite the fact that com/net/org domains 
constitute the vast majority of all domain names and that this member is 
expected to contribute the bulk of the ICANN budget is a particular feature 
of the problems of the current relationship.'   

Similarly, NSI could also argue that 'the developing relationship between 
members and the staff and Board of ICANN has more and more assumed the nature 
of an independent Support Organisation ("SO"). NSI expects to sign individual 
contracts with ICANN, and has prepared Best Practices and Contract documents 
for use of the gTLD community.   NSI tends to communicate directly with the 
Board and staff outside of the DNSO and Names Council framework.' 

Even so, are these arguments sufficient to warrant the creation of a separate 
SO?  If they are (in this analogy), then perhaps NSI should be entitled to 
three seats on the ICANN Board.   As for me, I don't find the arguments, as 
currently delineated, sufficiently compelling.

I am sure that we would all appreciate an informed discussion.  The 
re-structuring of ICANN and/or the DNSO is a significant challenge that can 
be best supported by a bottom-up community-based consensus process.  Perhaps 
we can begin by asking our former ccTLD representatives (an obviously 
impacted party) if they could shed some light on their position...

It would also be beneficial to hear the views of the other constituencies.

The ccSO Formation Statement may be found at:  
The gTLD Constituency Memo:

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>