Re: Re[2]: [ga] FW: Urgent: questions for ICANN Board Candidates

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 23:04:16 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:

>> 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?

Actually GAC in its early days was quite naive about how ccTLDs should
interact with ICANN and the early drafts of some contracts were pretty
bad.  Things are much better now.

It is only in the last 12 months ICANN stopped sending invoices and
started asking for donations.  

>[...]
>> 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.

If there is an alternative to global oversight then this is relevant
to ICANN which needs less of a role in global oversight compared to
gTLDs.

>> >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.

A fairly large fraction - around a third I think.

>> 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.

You mean they don't? :-)

Why else did the Board ignore the Names Council and give them more
favourable terms for their contracts which shot their share value up
by several billion and since the new contracts have allowed them to
act unilaterally with impunity on issues like transfers because now
there is no risk of losing .com.

>[...]
>> 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. 

Yes.  Now can some-one explained why this policy was not referred to
the DNSO as it is clearly a policy issue affecting domain names?

>> >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...

Look let me speak just for myself and how I have seen .nz's
involvement.  While Jon Postel was alive we followed with interest but
little more what was happening.  We were quite happy running .nz.

Then as ICANN was formed it seemed prudent to be involved as they were
to assume control of Root Server A.  Now since then .nz spends around
$200,000 a year of funding ICANN, DNSO, ccTLD, APTLD and travel to
meetings etc which is around 10% of every .nz domain name registered.
This is a very high level of expenditure which frankly I would rather
we didn't have to spend.

But if we are not involved we may one day find someone telling us we
must adopt the UDRP or we must exclude these names from registrations
or we must allow registrations at the 2nd not third level.

I don't know anyone who wants .nz to become big and powerful and to
run ICANN.  We would like to either be left alone or failing that to
make sure we have some influence so stupid polices are not imposed on
us from afar.

>> >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. 

No.  If a Government really wants to control a ccTLD it could pass a
law forcing it to be handed over etc.  The Governments will always
win.  But there is merit in arguing that a Government should be forced
to either go through due process via ICANN or transparently pass a law
rather than just be able to have an official write a letter to ICANN
and a week later it is re-delegated.

Most reasonable Govts agree with this also IMO.

>By the way, could you point out to me any indication from ICANN that
>ICANN is in favor of redelegation at whim?  Every case of redelegation 
>that I have observed has been conducted with incredible care.

I would never have thought ICANN was in favour of allowing NSI to
remain a Registrar as well as Registry - things can change very
quickly in ICANN.

I also believe the re-delegation of .au does raise serious issues of
no-compliance of policy.  Personally I believe .auDA is the logical
next manager of .au but OTOH I do not support the process where
existing policy is ignored and new policy invented to justify the
transfer.

>> >> 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.

The argument has been that most of their concerns are negotiated
directly with Board and staff anyway.  This may be because the DNSO is
dysfunctional.  

I would question whether there needs to be a PSO for that matter.
There doesn't seem to be any reason for a PSO except to elect Board
Members.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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