[ga] Re: The ccTLD position

["Peter Dengate-Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <board@aptld.org>; "icann board address"
<icann-board@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: The ccTLD position (was Re: [ga] taking positions on country
specific legislation


> Peter and all assembly members,
>
>   This suggestion may well be a good one, but is more difficult given the
> level of distrust that the ICANN BoD and staff have both engendered
> and deserved of late sense MDR.
>

Thank you.
We are working with the staff to attempt to close any communication gaps, at
least as far as our issues are concerned. Part of our situation is that by
effectively withdrawing from the DNSO some long time ago, we have not been
putting our own message across as effectively as we might.

> >
> >
> >   First of all it has already been shown that costs relative to an
At-Large
> membership
> is minimal despite it's size, but would be very difficult to be considered
> legitimate
> should ANY stakeholder be selectively excluded or Censored.

And if the country code registrars lend their support to the collection of
names and fees from cctld registrants who wish to take part in the At Large,
this cost will be even lower.

It would not, in my view be done free, nor is that suggested, but a further
slight load on the existing infrastructure is much cheaper than setting one
up.

If membership is restricted to those IDNH's, I suggest this is not a
question of legitimacy -those are certainly a "legitimate" interest group,
but rather one of completeness.

If you believe there is a wider grouping, how, practically, would you
identify them and process them into the organisation?

And given the nature of this process, would you hold up an advance which
created an At Large with a core legitimate group, and forego the opportunity
to argue for its expansion once its base was solid, because you wanted it
broad from the start? That runs the risk of creating a perpetual martyr
class.
>
>   As for Mike Roberts paper, a basic slur upon the DNSO GA in particular
> IS, and should not be a factor in any rational person/stakeholders mind in
> the makeup of the At-Large.  The ALSC's obviously skewed and well known
> previously determined ideological bent, is NOT a representation of the
> Forum's broad ranging consensus of comments expressed on that forum.
>

I'd rather focus on their arguments and conclusions.

> > OTOH, the ccSO is a force that has emerged under a true bottom up
consensus,
> > not only of those directly affected, but also with support from a
majority
> > of other constituencies.
>
>   I don't believe that I have seen a supporting resolution for the
formation
> of a ccSO coming from any of the other constituency's.  If such a document
> outlining your contention of such support could you please provide us
> all with a pointer(URL) to it?
>
See the presentations of IPC, ISPC and BC constituencies to the Stockholm
forum, where explicit support was announced. This has been confirmed by
those groups in MVO.

The Non-Coms agree that it is a bottom up, and genuine need, but are
concerned about the seats question. Milton Mueller said in our public
meeting that if the 9 seats were safe they would be right alongside us
cheering.

The registry constituency has asked a series of questions, and we are going
to dialogue further with them ,but no opposition has been voiced. Their
reaction, in fact appears much more to be "if you get one , we want one
too". Their explicit concern seems with the small number of cctlds that
choose to market broadly. The concern is that the ccSO might allow policies
which would competitively disadvantage the gTLDs against those.

To be fair, every one is waiting for further clarity of the detail before
providing commitment, which we are now working on.

Regards

--
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