[ga] (Fwd) RE: APTLD discussions on ERC: 6 May 2003
Some responses from the ERC.
I have passed on your thanks to them for these answers
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senor Vice Chair
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "Theresa Swinehart" <email@example.com>
Copies to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Alejandro Pisanty"
"Hans Kraaijenbrink" <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: APTLD discussions on ERC: 6 May 2003
Date sent: Mon, 5 May 2003 16:48:14 -0700
Thank you for your note. I forwarded it to Alejandro and Hans, key
points of contact on the ccNSO issues within the ERC, for their
feedback, if possible, within the time-frame that you'd indicated.
They provided me with the note below, which Alejandro, Chair of the
ERC, asked that forward the note below on his behalf.
The scope link *is* there but maybe not everyone is able to find it
easily. (I've also received queries about its "disappearance".) Maybe
it would be useful to modify the posting a bit to make it even more
visible outside and not only inside the text. We are working on this.
The links are in
Annex A, Recommendations on Policy-Development Process (ccPDP) of the
2. Creation of the Issue Report:
e. A recommendation from the Issue Manager as to whether the Council
should move to initiate the PDP for this issue (the "Manager
Recommendation"). Each Manager Recommendation shall include the
opinion of the ICANN General Counsel regarding whether the issue is
properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process as it pertains
to ccTLDs. In coming to his opinion, the General Counsel shall examine
whether the issue: 1) Is within the scope of ICANN's mission
statement; 2) Is within the scope of the ccNSO pursuant to the ccNSO's
Re other points:
1. At this point in time modifying the composition of the NomCom to
include the number of cc delegates mentioned is simply not achievable.
All elements of ICANN's structure will be subject to periodic review
however. In two years time it may be given consideration.
2. The ccNSO is planned to be an entity with a high weight in the
policy process. The scope has been addressed in a way that satisfies
the needs and views expressed by the cc community of global vs. local
policies, and the policy development process assumes a goodwill
approach but otherwise limits the cc administrators only very
tenuously. Here we have made an enormous opening for this valued
community, to the outermost reach where serious imbalances with other
ICANN sectors would break the delicately balanced system we have
3. A long debate ensued about the various options for decision-making
in both the AG and the ERC. The ERC believes that the present proposal
offers a right balance of powers. The ERC is conscious of the fact
that any system can be subject to capture or blockage. Nevertheless
the ERC hopes that the ccNSO Council vote will carry weight and
authority in the cc community.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:13 PM To: theresa Swinehart Cc:
> firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: APTLD discussions on ERC: 6 May 2003
> Dear Theresa,
> The APTLD will be reviewing the ERC recommendations in a chat
> meeting tomorrow, and I'd appreciate any information I can present
> to that meeting on the basis for the recommendations, where they
> differ from the cctld Rio recommendations.
> I paste below some questions sent on the APTLD list to Chris, who
> unfortunately won't be able to make the session - which you should
> also be able to provide some insight into.
> Information on any additional items will also be gratefully
> At least Centr of the other regional organisations is also going
> thru this review process, so explication of the basis for rejecting
> the cctld positions in favour of others will be useful to a wide
> I think an explanation of the choices made by the ERC ie
> indicating what balances
> have been struck between identified differing positions, is
> merited by the nature of
> the debate, required under the ICANN mantra of bottom up and
> transparent process
> and an appropriate response to the cctlds which have spent
> hundreds of thousands
> of dollars and other resources in developing their position at
> meetings around the
> (BTW - I note the explicit linking of the Scope matrix to the
> recommendations has
> not yet been made.)
> My regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> ******************* Sorry to miss you in this discussion - the
> short time frame posed by the ICANN staff/ERC for responding to the
> ERC report makes full participation unlikely.
> Nevertheless, I am sure we would all appreciate any contribution you
> can make by email in the next 24 to tomorrow's discussion? For eg,
> is there an Australian view on the ERC paper?
> In particular, what is your view on the remaining areas where the
> ERC has declined to adopt the recommendations of the cctlds?
> Do you know why the ERC insists on imposing 3 outside reps to the
> Council in the face of constant rejection of this concept by the
> ccTLDs in meetings since Bucharest where it emerged ? This is
> where your membership of the AG might be useful - who's idea is it?
> It is not the policy of the GNSO, nor of any individual constituency
> of that body except the Intellectual Property Constituency, who urge
> ( see http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/ccnsoag/msg00018.html)
> that there be such appointees - in fact that there be six!.
> I and many others in this debate have always been willing to debate
> the merits of each proposal, but can never get any response from ERC
> members or staff as to who wants this, and why.
> If it is just a demand from the IP community alone , this may help
> to explain what is intended.
> Can you tell us whether anyone else has a position on this, and why
> they are so insistent in the face of the cctld rejection?
> There has been no reaction either to the Rio suggestion that the
> cctlds would accept outside appointments if there were an increase
> in the number of cctld appointments to the Appointmets Committee.
> Why also is the cctlds preferred voting mechanism rejected?
> In Marina del Rey 2001 (from memory) the cctlds agreed that a
> conservative approach to the creation of binding policy was
> required, and they set up 66% of members in each region as the
> threshold level .
> This means that a majority of members in each region needs to be in
> agreement before there is a change in policy
> Under the ERC proposal, only a majority of 66% of all members is
> This means (obviously) that a region such as, say Europe, which
> might have 40 members, could vote in changes despite opposition from
> the 4 other regions if those memberships were spread out as, say
> AsiaPacific 8, Latin America 6, North America 3 and Africa 3.
> Even more likely, it would take only a slight collaboration between
> two large (ie multi-membered) regions say Europe and AsiaPacic to
> impose policy on the rest of the world.
> Do you know whose idea this is? The cctld position is well
> documented and clearly argued. Can you point to any published
> submissions by any group, or any other arguments that support the
> ERC position? If we knew where it was coming from, and who was
> supporting it, we might be better able to discern some value behind
> Again, sorry you will not be taking part -look forward to any light
> you can throw on these issues.
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
------- End of forwarded message -------
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