[council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD "Oversight" Body?

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Hi Paul,
Is this item listed by the Intake Comittee for consideration at our next NC
meeting?

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@nic.ac>
To: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
Cc: "J. William Semich" <bill@mail.nic.nu>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD "Oversight" Body?


> From a strategic perspective, will the ccTLDs be submitting a Paper to the
> NC/ICANN on the creation of the ccTLD SO??
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > This is very disturbing. Particularly considering the fact that no one
from
> > the NCDNHC consulted with or formally notified the ccTLD constituency.
It
> > sounds like the NCDNHC wants to set up a "regulatory board" over ccTLDs.
> >
> > I am looking forward to an expmanation of this from the NCDNHC to the
ccTLD,
> > in some kind of direct communication.
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> > [mailto:owner-cctld-discuss@wwtld.org]On Behalf Of J. William Semich
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:55 PM
> > To: cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> > Subject: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD "Oversight" Body?
> > Importance: High
> >
> > See below. from the minutes of the meeting (and actions) of the
> > Noncommercial Domain Name Holders Constituency during their meeting in
> > Stockholm. The NCDNHC:
> >
> > 1. Is about to begin a "witch hunt" for ccTLDs who are violating
RFC-1591
> > (proposed by a person who is attempting to redelegate .PH);
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2. Plans to determine exactly who/what is the "local Internet community"
> > when it comes to ccTLD redelegations, and to require DNSO "approval" of
> > ccTLD agreements with ICANN.
> >
> > These proposals were *approved* at the meeting of the noncommercial
> > constituency during the ICANN sessions in Stockholm.
> >
> > With friends like these, who needs enemies?
> >
> > Bill Semich
> > .NU Domain
> >
> > >Delivered-To: bsemich@mail.nu
> > >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:02:09 -0400
> > >From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> > >To: <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> > >Subject: Stockholm meeting minutes [long]
> > >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1719J@lyris.isoc.org>
> > >List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0
> > >List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> > >List-Owner: <mailto:owner-ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> > >Reply-To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> > >Sender: bounce-ncdnhc-discuss-1719@lyris.isoc.org
> > >X-Lyris-Message-Id:
> > <LYR1719-46427-2001.06.06-11.46.38--bsemich#MAIL.NU@lyris.isoc.org>
> > >
> > >Minutes
> > >Noncommercial constituency meeting, June 1, 2001
> > >
> > >Meeting called to order 9 am
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >Resolutions
> > ...
> > >ccTLD resolution
> > >Motion has three distinct parts. Zakaria Amar takes
> > >responsibility for moving the first part, regarding
> > >assistance to developing countries' cctlds. Kathy
> > >Kliman and Zakaria amend the language slightly to
> > >improve clarity, adding "technical and policy"
> > >assistance and some specific examples. That amendment
> > >passes 25 for, 2 against, 4 abstentions.
> > >
> > >Discussion of second part of resolution (Horacio Cadiz
> > >amendment), concerning formation of a NCDNHC committee
> > >to "investigate violations of ICP1 and RFC 1591."
> > >Example of the Philippines discussed.
> > >Criticism of this section by Adam Peake and Raul
> > >Echeberria: bad idea to get our constituency in the
> > >middle of this, also we lack the resources and
> > >capability to really investigate such problems. Motion
> > >to delete this part of the resolution fails 15
> > >against, 12 in favor, 4 abstentions.
> > >
> > >Moves on to a discussion of YJ Park's amendment,
> > >concerning a) consultation with local Internet
> > >community and the DNSO in making delegation or re-
> > >delegation decisions, and b) how ccTLD contracts
> > >should go through the DNSO process, and not be worked
> > >out directly between ccTLDs and ICANN management.
> > >
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Bill
> > --
> > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > Discussion Mailing list
> >
> > --
> > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > Discussion Mailing list
>
> --
> ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> Discussion Mailing list
>
>