Re: The ccTLD position (was Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Eric,
our over and over explained france@large position to the ccTLDs documented 
on http://icann-fra.org is probably the only realistic one - however we 
better understood why since we wrote it.

- the Internet is OUR consensus to connect OUR machines. This consensus of 
OURS is managed by OUR governance. We may be involved in two ways: as 
members of a group of similar "netwide" interests - this is a constituency 
like in the DNSO or we can be interested individually - these are the 
@large. All of US having different forms of interests, but being equally 
important to the others - as ISP, Registrars, ccTLD, @large, authors, 
designers, content providers, etc...

- the BoD is not elected. It is selected. What we want to achieve is the 
best balance among origins, concerns, etc... 9/9 is therefore natural 
between these to representation of ourselves. No one my outgrow the other, 
and there are diversified enough not to fear BoD hi-jacking. IMHO the 
"ccSO" should actually continue to participate to the DNSO and enter the 
ASO and PSO. Two possibilities: ccTLD get 3 seats and the 3 other 
constituencies get 2 and nobody is happy. ccSO get no seat and one Director 
from each SO must be a ccTLD.

Also, what we say is that the @large should share into the animation of the 
local communities with the ccTLD, so there is a local consensus between 
ccTLDs and @large for better relations.  We also way that ccTLD should stop 
thing as ccTLD and think as NICs. Because as ccTLD they are just a TLD 
among millions to come and big gTLDs. While as NIC they are unique in their 
country and can provide many new services and expand.

Jefsey



On 05:29 12/09/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Gentle Folks,
>
>You are all mailed directly here because I want your consensus!!
>
>This is very important to me and our many dotcommoners.  We must stand 
>together
>that there are no deletions to seats to the at large based upon creation 
>of any
>individuals constituency or any new ccTLD constituencies/SOs. If any one
>included herein determines that they can negotiate this back door for votes of
>what ever please speak your piece.
>
>Please join with me on a consensus to this matter.
>
>Bless all who in engage in dialogue.
>Eric
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The fact that there is a formidable challenge to the At Large Movement
> > > having 9 seats is not of the ccTLDs making.
> >
> > True enough.
> >
> > > In the absence of creating new seats, we accept that our ccSO proposal
> > will
> > > require a re-allocation of existing seats. There are a large number of
> > > factors which will go into the Board's re-evaluation of the balance of
> > > representation in ICANN.
> > >
> > > Once there is acceptance of the ccSO in principle, we expect to take part
> > > with other stakeholders in discussions about that balance. That's a 
> debate
> > > we look forward to.
> >
> > This almost sounds encouraging.
> >
> > >In the meantime, lets stick to the facts.
> >
> > I'm all for that.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos

--
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