[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

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

Alejandro and all,

Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > The NCC has been doing precisely that. The problem
> > is that from the beginning it has been assaulted by fifth-columnists (ICANN consultants, e.g., or agents of ccTLDs). Another problem is that DNSO is completely
> > dominated by the Business constituencies.
>
> This is surely one of the most abysmally low points in the debate the
> NCDNHC has yet witnessed.

  Yes this is abysmal to say the least.  But Milton is none the less
correct in his comments/observation above.  As such this debate,
like others boils down to exactly what Milton stated here...

>
>
> > So even if we were completely successful at
> > exerting leadership (as we have been in the ORG case)
>
> Unfortunately this is much more apparent than real.

  Perhaps and perhaps not.

>
>
> >
>
> > the ICANN mgmt has still not invited DNSO to be
> > represented on the committee discussing the future of
> > country name exclusions. Yet GAC and WIPO and
> > Afilias are.
>
> Will act on this point.

  Hope so.  However it really matters as to HOW this will be
acted upon and WHEN...

>
>
> >
> > The relevance of this to the ccSO subject:
> > if developing country
>
> Only a small part of the ccSO subject is even remotely related to
> developing-country issues.

  They are none the less very important, if not overridingly so...

>
>
>  interests recognize the
> > failure of DNSO to be a bottom up, fair, effective
> > representation method and wish to tie themselves
> > to stronger ccTLD registries, how can we blame them?
> > Why be the weakest member of a weak appendage
> > to the ICANN Structure?
> >
> > I think that is what this ccSO debate it all about.
> >
>
> I beg to differ. A lot more dynamics may be at work. Awareness of them is
> a must to continue discussing the ccSO debate. Otherwise it becomes mostly
> a distractor. Milton has called the NCDNHC to provide guidance on specific
> questions on .ORG and the discussion on ccSO has turned attention away
> from it. Which is not to say we must reopen the whole thing; there is
> enough to work on!

  Both issues are important and to a degree overlapping.  Hence to
preference one in favor of another is folly...

>
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> > --MM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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