[ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

[vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET>]

Derek,

thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.

I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.

Vint Cerf

At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
>The ICANN Board should take into consideration the demonstrated lack of
>progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
>take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
>concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.
>
>It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status within ICANN
>is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
>However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
>demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
>consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
>this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
>compromised or cheapened.
>
>The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
>upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
>holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
>faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.
>
>Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
>my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members voted (if I
>am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
>only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
>proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not understand the
>process or representations.
>
>It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
>proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
>ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
>does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
>necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
>international community.
>
>This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
>GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
>proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
>community.  The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase with the ICANN
>Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show demonstrated
>diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
>that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status.  This
>should then cause the international community to pull together in an
>effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies necessary
>for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
>accelerate ICANN's international objectives.
>
>My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
>group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
>applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
>applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
>status without these requirements could destabilize the integrity of the
>DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose momentum or
>give up when they fail to work within the DNSO.  The other
>constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to want SO status
>if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.
>
>At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
>representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
>constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
>within ICANN.  I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
>narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
>outside of the DNSO.  I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
>interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
>the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
>constituencies with valid consensus results.  I explained that this is
>what is probably needed first.
>
>At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
>organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
>parties.  A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
>International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever) with a broad
>scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
>constituencies that produce valid consensus.  In my opinion, this is
>what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting for.  And, to
>protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything less from an
>applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
>represent the international community.
>
>If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
>representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
>Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
>they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
>ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
>seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
>difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
>difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
>the ccTLD constituency.
>
>The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
>comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
>requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO status. With all
>of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and underdeveloped
>organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
>ICANN itself to become unstable.
>
>Derek Conant
>DNSGA President and Chairman

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