RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Re:

alternate roots

The ccTLD has no position on the subject of alternate roots. The matter has
never come up in ccTLD working groups or drafting committees.

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Chris McElroy
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 4:46 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC


To reiterate a question posed by Bruce James in a way, What is the ccTLDs
position on roots such as the ORSC?
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
To: "'DPF'" <david@farrar.com>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:29 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC


> re:
>
> "There is a strong case IMO that the ccTLDS should have far more voting
> strength than 1/7th of the DNSO which is in turn 1/6th of the Board so
> is 1/42nd" etc and 1/3 of the budget...
>
> Yes, we (ccTLD) are studying possible alternatives in our relationship
with
> ICANN. Also, we feel tha ccTLD participation potentially lends geat
> credibility to ICANN in terms of validating "International Status", and
> should help the ICANN goal of getting control of the root deligated from
US
> Dept of Commerce.
>
> These are real issues, especially considering the fact that a new
> (Republican) administration is coming into power in the U.S.
>
> peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of DPF
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:17 PM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:43:10 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> >It is obvious that there are in fact groups (such as the ccTLDs and the
> >registrars) that are in a unique relationships with ICANN, relationships
> >that are not fairly or adequately addressed by a "one person, one vote"
> >rule.  The exact nature of these unique relationships is debatable, but
> >that they exist is not.  These groups demand, and in fact deserve, a
> >special place at the table.
>
> I agree that there is a need for constituencies for both political and
> administrative reasons but apart from debating which groups should
> have a constituency we should also (IMO) debate are all constituencies
> equal??
>
> Why should all constituencies get three seats on Names Council??  This
> is very arbitrary and one can argue that some constituencies are far
> more important than others.
>
> There is a strong case IMO that the ccTLDS should have far more voting
> strength than 1/7th of the DNSO which is in turn 1/6th of the Board so
> is 1/42nd all up - especially as they are asked to fund 35% of the
> budget.
>
> Now one way around this is having the ccTLDS become a SO, but one can
> also look at whether representation on the Names Council should be 3
> votes per constituency.
>
> DPF
> ________________________________________________________________________
> <david at farrar dot com>
> NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
> ICQ 29964527
>