[ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:43:05 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:36:27 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> > A ccTLD sponsor does not have a sole focus of making a profit.  In
> > fact for .nz the over-riding priority is to serve the local internet
> > community.

> Then what should happen is, to hand those ccTLDs back to their
> designated countries? What are you saying here.

Hi Roeland

I can't speak for New Zealand but I do have experience in Australia.  As you
may know I am on the Board of auDA, the Australian country code.  Of course,
I speak in my personal capacity and not on behalf of the Board.

As I see it, each ccTLD is like a mini-ICANN.  As it may not have any
responsibility for IP addresses perhaps it is more appropriate to equate a
ccTLD with the DNSO.  At least that's the way I see it.

Now the DNSO is made up of seven constituencies representing registrars,
registries, businesses, trade marks etc.  Each ccTLD may be organised
similarly (i.e. with some form of constituency structure).

In Australia, for example, auDA's membership is open to interested parties
in three categories of membership - Supply, Demand and Representative
Associations.  Representatives from each of these classes sit on the board
of auDA for two year terms.

As provided in the Constitution, the auDA Board comprises:
*    Three (3) persons elected by Supply Class Members;
*    Three (3) persons elected by Demand Class Members;
*    Three (3) persons elected by Representative Association Class Members;
*    Two (2) persons elected by the Members voting together as a whole;

For details, see http://www.auda.org.au/about/board.html
This composition makes it very hard for any one group to "capture" the
Board.

You can see, perhaps, that David Farrar seems to be saying that a ccTLD
is really neither "supply" or "demand" like a gTLD registry.  It should not,
therefore, be lumped in with supply as Chuck Gomes seemed to suggest.

This is why ccTLDs argue for consideration as a separate Supporting
Organisation rather than a separate constituency within the DNSO.

I have tried to provide a better focus on the problem by asking members
of the GA to consider the underlying supply-demand reality.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss




--
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