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

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Allow me to clear up some misunderstandings here.

Let me begin by noting that I voted against the ccTLD resolution, primarily 
due to the section about "investigating RFC 1591 violations." We do
not have the capacity or time to get involved in that, IMHO. The
resolution must still be ratified by an online vote. Semich is on our list
and is welcome to explain why we should not vote for it, if that is
what he thinks is best.

It is also my opinion that the proposal for a ccSO pretty much moots
the NCDNHC's resolution. Although the concerns that gave rise to it
are still valid. They will need to be addressed within a new structure.

NCDNHC obviously has no authority over ccTLD delegations. So
it is in no position to be an "oversight" body, much less engage in
"witch hunts." 

However, in some locales there is great frustration with the ccTLD
delegee. Dot PH is one, I have heard of similar problems in several
other countries. The bottom line is that many people within NCDNHC 
- mostly from developing or Asian countries - are not convinced that 
current processes have any reliable way to allow a dissatisfied "local 
Internet community" to seek redress. That is the key issue. 

Also, ccTLDs are registries and, sometimes, registrars. It seems 
inconsistent for one aspect of registrar-registry policy to go through
DNSO and another, involving ccTLDs, to be handled in a completely
different way. That inconsistency will, I suspect, come back to bite
us in the long term.

My advice is for ccTLD constituency members to read the 
resolution, enter into discussions with its authors (Hakikur Rahman,
YJ Park, and Horacio Cadiz) about what the rationale was,
correct any misperceptions they might have, and explain how the
proposed new SO structure might allay those concerns. 

--MM

> 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
>
>