Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel
Nice and pricise answers. Its amazing that some people out there still think
(and maybe even believes) that a sovereign country would ever allow policies
developed by "foreigners" put on their infrastructure against their will.
DK Hostmaster A/S
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> 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.
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair, APTLD
> ccTLD Adcom
> cctld-discuss mailing list
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html