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

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

While I sympathise with your concerns, it is worth remembering the the role
of the DNSO is to promote consensus and provide advice to ICANN on policy
issues.

With respect, I suggest we focus on doing just this.

regards,
erica

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
Cc: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>; <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>;
<council@dnso.org>; <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight"
Body?


> YJ and all,
>
>   It would seem to me that the proper body for such a proposed oversight
> body would be the DNSO GA.  I am sorry if this is in contrast to your view
> in this instance.  But the NCDNHC is only one constituency within the
> DNSO.  The DNSO GA allows participation of any constituency
> member as well as others.  Therefore the reason for my suggestion of
> the DNSO GA.
>
> YJ Park wrote:
>
> > 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-1799I@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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>