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

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Those who are concerned in NCDNHC's ccTLD resolution,

NCDNHC resolution comprised of three parts.
Please, note that each resolution was passed separately
and finally it was passed in one motion after three different
voting to make it easier in presenting resolutions in the forum.

1st, support for forming a body which would provide technical
assistance to developing countries' ccTLD registries.
(Proposed by Hakikur and no objection from the community.)

2nd, NCDNHC's body which will study whether the current
ICP-1 and RFC-1591 documents need to be modified, supplemented,
or replaced by a new document which will ensure ccTLD admin
adhere to community-based, community-supported and neutral
registry operations of the ccTLD registries in consonance with
ICANN's policy of ensuring a neutral gTLD registry.
(Proposed by Horacio and have raised concerns from the community.)

Due to Horacio's absence in the meeting, his motion was explained
by several people to understand his motion.

FYI, the body formation by NCDNHC also raised concerns during the
discussion on June 1st whether NCDNHC has such resources and it
was very unclear what kind of roles or functions are expected from such
a body. However, it is very clear that nobody in the constituency, as far
as I understand, considers such a body can paly "oversight" role, which
has been raised by ccTLD communities. The general rationale which I
understood was NCDNHC has to be involved with ccTLD issues as part
of local Internet community which is also clearly written in ccTLD's
"Best Practice" document.

3rd, My ammendment addresses the importance of consulation with
local Internet community which should not exclude non-commercial
voices and more open discussion under the assumption that ccTLD
is one of DNSO constituencies.

However, under ccSO condition as proposed in Stockholm, this motion
can be changed in the ccSO context.

ccSO is expected to elaborate "local Internet community" and is to
facilitate its consultation with appropriate bodies and parties including
local Internet community.

DNSO/ICANN has been occupied with gTLD concerns from its
beginning and little chances to be involved with ccTLD concerns.
i.e. DNSO has looked into Verisign contract whether it is fair to
the global Internet community. With the same logic, I do believe
ccTLD contract should be consulted with the relevant community
in an open manner. Such ccTLD contract or issues will affect
ISPs, Registrars, Non-commecial folks, business in the same
fashion the gTLD affects to them.

If DNSO is not the proper place to have such an open forum,
ccTLD constituency can propose ccSO which will encompass
its relevant stakeholders in the form of General Assembly such as
local Internet community which is expected to be defined with
more clean-cut mode rather than leaving a blank which can be
arbitrarily changed without consistancy.

Hoping this will clear the concerns raised by some parts of
the community, NCDNHC is willing to participate in its further
ccTLD discussion as part of "Local Internet Community".

Regards,
YJ

> 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
> >
> >
>