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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> re: 31 ccTLDs in stockholom
>
> First of all, I believe the count is 40 plus. Second, we (ccTLD) have been
> discussing a new form of relationship with ICANN for over a year now.

  Great!  Thanks for the update on the correct number Peter.  Much
appreciated.

>
>
> When combining the unanimous vote in Stockholm, with the votes of other
> ccTLDs who were present in Melbourne and Los Angeles, we are at a
> significant majority of all currently participating ccTLDs. By currently
> partici[ating, i mean that in 2 years, we have reached somewhat over 100
> cctLDs, eith on a list, face to face meeting, or by having them participate
> in an election.

  Well done!  I only hope that the ccTLD's recognize that they are very
important to their stakeholders and or registrants there within.  I also
hope that the ICANN BoD does not continue to "Game" the interests
of the ccTLD's as has been their behavior thus far...

>
>
> That said, of course we will put the resolution to the ccTLD list for
> endorsement.
>
> Peter de Blanc
> chair, ccTLD AdCom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of DPF
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:46 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700, Derek wrote:
>
> >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 ASO and PSO do not have constituencies so why should the ccSO?
>
> Nevertheless this is an interesting point.  Should the ccTLD
> registries be the *only* component of a ccTLD SO?
>
> This is worth considering before we get too far down the track.
>
> >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.
>
> I think you will find those 31 ccTLDs though comprise over 95% of
> ccTLD domain names and probably 99% of ICANN funding through ccTLDs.
>
> >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.
>
> On the contrary they have regional grouping, an international
> executive cmte and a secretariat.  They seem better organised than
> even the DNSO arguably.
>
> >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.
>
> I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
> far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
> representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
> take their ball and play elsewhere.
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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


--
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