Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

[barrister@chambers.gen.nz]

On 23 Apr 2003 at 13:34, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:


> With the issuance of the ERC's Fifth Supplemental Implementation
> Report we are moving a step closer toward discarding all pretense
> about the true nature of ICANN -- the organization is evolving into a
> true Cartel with a brand new trade association for ccTLD
> administrators (the ccNSO) . 
> 
Depends on what you mean by a "trade Association"

> No longer are other constituent groups entitled to be members of a
> Supporting Organization in the reformed ICANN -- this SO will consist
> only of ccTLD managers.
> 
Which is something I and others have fought hard for since we began this process 
in Marina del Rey in 2000

In fact, the ERC proposal does not meet the cctld requirements - clearly visible and 
explained to the ERC and the board of ICANN (see 
http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/Rio/ccNSO_resolution.html) in that the ERC in this 
proposal still seeks to impose, in classic top down fashion, 3 voting councillors.

This would be acceptable only if cctlds had a balanced membership on the 
Appointments committee, rather than the one out of 21 or so voting members. Even 
one of the user constituencies of the GNSO gets 2 votes, yet the 242 territorial 
entities get only one... This may yet be subject to an amendment, but don't hold 
your breath.

> Step-by-step the rights of user communities are being eradicated
> within ICANN.  It began with the elimination of At-Large directors, it
> continued with the elimination of the democratic mechanisms of the
> DNSO General Assembly, it next proceeded with enhanced voting rights
> for GNSO "suppliers", and it now manifests itself in a new SO that
> relegates user constituencies to the sidelines.

This just not so in relation the proposed ccSO. Almost all cctld registries ( and all 
the large ones taking part in this process) are subject to national policy making 
controls, involving a varied mix of governmental and private sector input: Canada 
has CIRA, New Zealand has InternetNZ, Nominet has a Policy advisory 
board.....That is where the interests of cctld user constituencies are already 
provided for -in the balance of domestic interests. That's where isues of domestic 
law, such as IP rights, privacy, whois and other matters are also dealt with.

ccTLDs are not prepared to go thru the expensive, time consuming balancing of all 
those interests in the development of national policies, that meet the needs of their 
Local Internet Communities, only to have them re-litigated in another forum not 
responsible for such matters.

For that reason, the cc's have limted the power of their SO to make binding policy 
only in relation to entries in the IANA data base. 

Hard to see what global user issue that affects.

Having said that, I have also worked to ensure that a cctld SO has functioning 
liason with other parts of the ICANN structure, and expect this to continue.

If there are actual issues of interest to a global user community, and that are 
properly discussed in a global, rather than a domestic forum, I would welcome them 
and their proponents at our SO meetings and on lists set up to discuss them.

It remains to be seen what the final form of an SO will look like, and whether 
enough cctlds will join to pass the activation threshold (curently 20: 4 from each of 
the 5 regions). In any event, I think you can assume that the only format will be one 
in which the voting members will be the cctlds, representing the policy making of 
their LIC's including governments.

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair, APTLD
ccTLD Adcom 

 

--
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