Re: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

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

Kent and all assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> [...]
> > >The fact is
> > >that the ccTLDs, ICANN, and the governments are embroiled in a
> > >tremendously complex dance, and ICANN isn't going to do anything drastic
> > >without substantial support from the GAC.
> >
> > Yep but not just from GAC as a body but if it is sure of support from
> > the major governments individually.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > >But if ICANN has support from
> > >the GAC -- that is, if the interested governments come up with a uniform
> > >position, then the ccTLDs will have no choice but to comply.
> >
> > But GAC is showing no signs of trying to force ccTLDs to sign
> > contracts forcing them to fund ICANN with unlimited money and next to
> > no representation.
>
> Since no such contracts have ever even been contemplated, that isn't
> surprising, is it?

  And how do you or a for that matter, any one else know that?

>
>
> [...]
> > Some ccTLDs have oversight from their local internet community.  If
> > people don't like what is happening they sack people at the AGM -
> > which is exactly what happened in NZ last year.  Much better oversight
> > than ICANN could do.
>
> But ICANN really is not concerned with local oversight issues.

Well except for the UDRP anyway...

>

>
>
> > >This is why the ccTLDs want disproportionate
> > >representation on the board -- they fear the collectivity of their own
> > >governments, and they think that they need control through the ICANN
> > >board.
> >
> > One could argue that representing 242 out of the 257 TLDs even six
> > Board Members would be under-represented.  I don't actually support
> > this and think three would be sensible.
>
> But they represent only a fraction of total domain name registrations...
> and the number of non-cc TLDs will grow.

  Yes, the number of non-ccTLD's will grow and is growing, despite
the ICANN BOD and staff's finagling with lotteries...

>
>
> > I don't think the ccTLDs was control of the ICANN Board - they just
> > want a decent level of representation.
>
> If we go by number of registrations, if the ccTLDs got 3 seats,
> Verisign should get 9.

  How many does New.net get in your opinion?  0?  Hummmm?

>
>
> [...]
> > You assume GAC could come to a uniform policy.  Have you seen how long
> > treaties take to negotiate sometimes?
>
> I think it is quite possible that the GAC could come up with policies
> much quicker than that.  While the process is indeed painful, they
> already have produced effective policies -- for example, in the gTLD
> approval process they have effectively asserted control over SLDs that
> duplicate ISO3166 names.

  And this is a huge problem and an even bigger long term stability mistake.

>
>
> [...]
>
> > >Then why do ccTLDs so desparately want direct positions on the board? If
> > >things were as you describe, then there would be no need for that.
> >
> > Because many ccTLDs are not selfish and want ICANN to succeed and
> > would rather be part of ICANN than fighting it.  They want to specify
> > and limit the authority of ICANN but they do want it to succeed.
>
> Sorry, I'm a little too cynical to take that straight, I'm afraid :-).
> Indeed, I have the very highest respect and warm feeling for several
> ccTLD managers I know personally.  But "specify and limit the authority
> of ICANN" somehow seems just a wee bit selfish, to me, no matter how you
> try to sugar coat it.  And of course, if they controlled ICANN, they
> would want it to succeed...
>
> [...]
>
> > >The reason that ccTLDs want
> > >positions on the board is because they don't want to be under the
> > >control of their governments.  They want to control ICANN so they can
> > >use ICANN as a lever against their own governments.
> >
> > Most ccTLDs recognise that if their Governments want a redelegation
> > the Government will win out eventually.  They would like there to be
> > some sort of due process so it can not be done at whim.
>
> Yes, of course: that is, they would like to control ICANN so that can
> use ICANN as a lever against their own governments.  That is, you are
> just putting a different spin on exactly what I said.

  This is why stakeholders must have the control.  Not the ICANN BoD
and staff, the GAC, or even the governments....

>
>
> By the way, could you point out to me any indication from ICANN that
> ICANN is in favor of redelegation at whim?

  Yeah, .AU is one such example...

>  Every case of redelegation
> that I have observed has been conducted with incredible care.

  Please!  What utter nonsense....

>
>
> > >> Don't think that ICANN would have a shit show in hell of surviving a
> > >> war with the ccTLDs as long as the major ccTLDs had their Govt onside.
> > >
> > >...as long as, indeed.  That is precisely the issue.
> >
> > I have never argued otherwise.  But if ICANN tried to do what William
> > proposed then most Govts would back their ccTLD.
>
> Sure sure.  The real question is whether the ccTLDs position really
> merits another SO and unique representation on the board.  It certainly
> isn't clear to me at this point that it is warranted.

  Agreed.  In fact, I have problem finding an argument that is reasonable
for the ccTLD's collectively to wish to become their own SO, unless
they wish to devise their own separate policies for the respective
ccTLD's.  But they can do this independently, such as China has done.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>

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