Re: DNSGA Re: [wg-review] [Review] ccTLD vs DNSO vs ICANN vs GAC

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

Dear Ms. Lane.

I founded the Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA) in August 2000 when it became apparent to me that ICANN and its affiliated organizations were not giving the international Internet community and ccTLD representatives a fair and equal stake in ICANN decision making processes that affected policy and the development of standards governing the domain name system (DNS).

ICANN's role in the DNS appeared to me to be blatantly biased against the international community for its apparent self-serving interest to control the DNS at any cost on behalf of the United States Department of Commerce (DoC) for United States' strategic interests.

ICANN's role and organization also appeared to me to be wholly illegal under US law.  ICANN appeared to me to have crossed the threshold of its original and legal designation when it began its process of licensing new top-level domains (new TLDs).  The United States, through the DoC and ICANN, appears to circumvent the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and due process, in violation of the US Constitution and its nondelegation doctrine, to develop United States strategic interests in the DNS.

The problem I found with the ICANN model is that the international Internet community is waking-up, and certainly when the Giant is fully awake it will not accept the ICANN rhetoric no matter how many ropes ICANN used to tie the Giant down.

I believe that it is time for real international constituency representation and how can the international Internet community trust ICANN or its supporting organizations?

Answers to your questions in short order below:

>In relation to constituencies:-
>1.) What would be the advantages for ccTLDs to leave DNSO and join an
>organization independently of ICANN ?
Answer:  I believe that an organization independent of ICANN would be a more productive one than one directly affiliated with ICANN.  This is because it is hard to trust a dog that has bitten a hand that feeds it.

>2.) What kind of relations do you anticipate between DNSGA and ICANN?
Answer:  The DNSGA plans to do what it can to convince ICANN and the United States of the concerns and productive objectives of the international Internet community.

>In relation to procedure:-
>3.) Do you anticipate difficulties with the multi-lingual aspects of a
>growing international organization?
Answer:  No.

>4.) How does the process by which you function and create policies etc.
>differ from the DNSO/ ICANN?
Answer:  The DNSGA is a new organization and its policy making processes and functions are still under development.  The DNSGA will rely on international constituency participation and its membership for direction.  The DNSGA will accept contributions to fund DNSGA efforts.  This will in part allow compensation for DNSGA administration and lawyers to effectively communicate to ICANN and the US the concerns and productive objectives of the international Internet community.

Will anything less than this work?  

Best regards,
Derek Conant
Chairman of the Board
Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
dconant@dnsga.org
 

Joanna Lane wrote:

Derek Conant wrote:-
Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

Maybe the international Internet community, and more specifically ccTLD
representatives, need to participate in a new organization wholly separate
from
ICANN?>

Hi Derek,
>From what I can gather, you established DNSGA less than six months ago.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Since then, you say you have received "overwhelming support from
representatives of country-code top-level domain registries (ccTLDs) and
from the international Internet community." If so, clearly DNSO is not
delivering all that the ccTLDs want and I wonder what role the DNSGA is
fulfilling exactly that cannot be matched by ICANN.

Here are my questions:-

In relation to constituencies:-
1.) What would be the advantages for ccTLDs to leave DNSO and join an
organization independently of ICANN ?
2.) What kind of relations do you anticipate between DNSGA and ICANN?

In relation to procedure:-
3.) Do you anticipate difficulties with the multi-lingual aspects of a
growing international organization?
4.) How does the process by which you function and create policies etc.
differ from the DNSO/ ICANN?

Thank you,
Joanna Lane

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I bow to your wisdom and Greg's analysis of how we can accomplish the most
good.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Eric wrote:-
> > Don't you think that perhaps our input may help them in the task.  The
> > extraordinary support from this group regarding addressing the issues of
> > multi-lingualism should at least let them know they have a wide base of
> > support
> > to come up with solutions.  Also it will give people a heads up as to
what
> > likely antagonists positioning will be, something I would be most
grateful
> > for.
> >
> > On the other hand I would like to know where in Mr. Burton's categories
this
> > thread belongs.
> >
> > [Joanna]  I just think we could save time if we knew what the ccTLD's
want
> > first, and in particular, from this WG.
> > Hello ccTLDs, do you have any position papers to clarify the issues for
us?
> >
> > > YJ Park wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello members,
> > > >
> > > > As you read, Bill asked not to cross post wg-review message to
> > > > cctld-discuss list. Please keep this in mind.
> > > >
> > > > We have focused "Language Divide" and "Translation Cost" in
> > > > ICANN process. As you may know, ccTLD is going to have a
> > > > meeting in Hawaii to figure out what their future should be.
> > > >
> > > > Since ccTLD constituency is in the DNSO structure at this juncture,
> > > > it might be more productive to discuss bigger picture for
WG-Review's
> > > > recommendation to the Names Council.
> > > >
> > > > 1. [DNSO Structure Discussion] ccTLD should be in the DNSO?
> > > > 2. If not, what could be the potential model
> > > > 3. [NET Sovereignty] If so, what kind of relations should there
> > > >     be between ccTLD and ICANN
> > > > 4. What kind of relations among ccTLD vs ICANN vs GAC
> > > >
> > >
> > > > :So with this in mind just what sort of relations exist at this
time?
> > >
> > > I am not comfortable with discussing what would be the appropriate
model
> > for
> > > ccTLDs, when they, themselves, have not yet determined what their
future
> > > should be. I would have thought we should wait for a proposal to come
from
> > > Hawaii, then discuss the merits.
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html