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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

At 02:03 12/09/01, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:
> > I review this older post and ask if it is not exactly on point today as
> > the ccTLDs fight to take away seats from the at large while power brokers
> > brokers promise certain votes to certain interests.
>
>Please, a little accuracy, even if does damage your hyperbole.
>The cctlds are not fighting to take away at large seats.

Noted. So you support that Internet Participants may be represented though 
their dedicated "netwide" interests groups thought the SOs, and 
individually through the @large. And that this representation is balanced 
9/9+1 or the like.

>The cctlds agreed in an historic decision in Montevideo, that there were a
>narrow range of global policy issues affecting ccTLds which the cc's would
>be prepared to have developed through the ICANN consensus policy development
>process.

This seems contradictory to me from observation and experience. There is an 
ICANN policy motivated by the legitimate need of the ICANN corporation to 
survive and develop in cooperation with the DoC interests. There is an 
Internet consensus policy motivated by the Internet Participant common 
interest. There are other global interests motivated by different kind of 
community interests. Some we know: the GAC interests of the States, the 
WIPO, the GIP, etc...

>That meant they agreed to be bound, within their ccTLDs, to implement the
>outcome of those decisions.
>
>(See the Montevideo communique, posted to this list.)
>
>An obvious political consequence of that is for the CCTlds to ensure that
>they have an appropriately balanced voice in the ICANN structure, which can
>be heard while that policy is being developed. No one surely expects them to
>accede to policies being made, which will bind them, in a forum they have
>no, or insufficient voice in.

Total agreement.

>There is no  credible doubt that the proper forum for the discussion of
>those cc issues is a ccSO.

Total agreement if you want them to be discussed under the ICANN and as 
pure ccTLDs instead of NICs what may lead @large to develop their own 
substitution to NICs. We need a structured animation of the LICs. ALso many 
extended services start developing and call for infrastructure support and 
commercial alliances.

>There is no disagreement with our statement that the DNSO is the forum for
>development of generic domain name issues. (Please note this is not the
>place for a performance comment on how well the DNSO might be fulfilling
>this role).

Here is the problem. The DNSO is not meant to be the forum for the 
development of the generic domain name issues. It is meant to be the 
organization developing the ICANN name space management policy.

Be sure that should the ccTLD stop attending the DNSO this GA and @large 
will soon propose an alternative to the ccTLDs they may dialog with. As DPF 
documented it your nz ccTLD spends 10% of its revenues to protect itself 
against the ICANN in attending the ICANN - while he thinks - and I agree - 
they do not need the ICANN.

If you use the ICANN only as an Hotel for your meetings, there are cheaper 
ones.

Whatever the organization the ccTLDs undertake, they must first join all 
those who want to break the inept rigidness of the XIXth century ICANN 
structure and hierarchical flow chart. Constituencies must be able to 
attend any SO the deem necessary. ccTLDs must participate to ASO, PSO, DNSO 
while forming their own ccSO (hopefully NICSO). The Registrants 
Constituency underway wants to dialog with *every* TLD Manager - gTLD 
constituency, ccSO and TLDA.

>There is no disagreement that the DNSO is quite the wrong place for cc
>issues such as the ICANN contract, cc Funding etc to be debated.

Absolutely true.

>The fact is that an SO provides for board representation. We do not say this
>should come at the "expense" of any other group's entitlement, whether
>vested or otherwise, in Board seats.

This is not gospel. Another way would be that SO endorse candidates to be 
selected by the Constituencies as a college.

Even if this is true, this only mean that SOs have to reorganize their 9 seats.

>The fact that there is a formidable challenge to the At Large Movement
>having 9 seats is not of the ccTLDs making.

There is no formidable challenge. There is a progressive retreat of the 
anti-stability mongers. For a long they obtained that 0 of the 9 @large be 
elected. They accepted 5. Now they agree on 6. We will make sure that 9 are 
elected. I only do not see the advantage for ccTLDs to abandon what makes 
their strength and interest for ICANN casuistic's love (would you be a 
lawyer :-) ).

I mean that today the best ccTLDs allies are the @large. That your 
legitimacy can only come from the IANA or from your LIC and the LIC's spine 
are the @large. That your activity and services development is to the LIC 
and again in priority to its moving edge, i.e. the @large.  And your best 
protection is the local @large support while the only real thread on you is 
the opposition of the local @large people.

>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.

Anything which unbalance the Internet Participant representation between 
them as groups and them as individuals will lead to instability. The BoD is 
not a parliament. It is a Board. What is demanded  internally is 
competence, honesty and control on the Staff and externally it is to show 
enough diverse origin for different interests to trust their collective 
decisions.

This trust will never be granted to an unbalanced BoD. You may like it or 
not, but this is he way the  man is built.

>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. In the meantime, lets stick to the facts.

If you mean by stakeholders the other constituencies and their interests in 
the different SOs, I support that. If you mean to fall into Joe Sims' trap 
... to over and over complicating the obvious to permit ICANN to address 
the problem it created through binding contracts to its advantage (but it 
has not the practical capacity to enforce, I disagree.


A question: what has achieved the ICANN?

- IANA - may be something in the Channel Islands, not Pitcairn yet, 
accepted .ca, followed the .us travel, a coup on .au with a new policy to 
justify not yet published. Uncertainty about .eu and .ps. The change in the 
name of two countries - hardly their real doing (Congo and Russia).

- ASO - where is IPv6 and a general education and consensus?

- PSO - show me an interesting project. Not even a ccTLD management system. 
ENUM to NSI?

- DNSO - oh! yes a big result: Plan B. Billions given to Verisign and to 
the ccTLD competition. Tow TLD on the root - including a collider - two 
brilliant TLD sunrises

- Registrars: a "separate" business activity with half its members going 
down or being saved in being aggregated to the leading Registry.

- Root Servers. Nothing special by their own (they have not even yet hired 
the Technical Manager to be a contact with people in charge). Still half 
the Root Servers on the East Coast as the most important threads on the 
world's economy as shown in the last hours..... Oh! yes they published the 
St. Lynn Good Boot on single authoritative root of failures.

I would really want to know what real they  did more?

So why not to agree all together about what we want the ICANN to be and 
force it to be it for its and our good?

We would all save a lot of time, money and efforts and we would help the 
economy restarting. Recession was a thread, the WTC Tragedy is going to be 
a bad thing. An Internet development may have a key role in a a positive 
reaction.

IMHO the quickest way to make it is an objective and fruitfull alliance 
between @large and ccTLDs.
Jefsey




>Regards,
>
>Peter Dengate Thrush
>Co-Chair ccTLD Montevideo Meeting.
>
>Senior Vice Chair
>Asia Pacific TLD Association
>
>
>
>
>--
>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