<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[Fwd: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA]
I think with the at-large tearing at the seems of the foundation of
ICANN these well discussed issues should be
rethought here. It would be fair to say that I believe ICANNs
centristic demise will lead to the problem/opportunity for ccTLDs to
interconnect using other methods such as those laid out by the fine sirs
of Babtista and Fleming.
I realize that discussing something that will likely occur in the future
bothers many control freaks on the GA, but that is exactly why they are
such a whining ineffectual group. Albeit in instances that includes me.
This is strategic speak and I would love to hear why I am wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: "'Patrick Corliss'" <patrick@quad.net.au>; "Philip Sheppard"
<philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Cc: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> Patrick,
>
> Without detracting from your point about the individuals consitutuency, it
> seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
ccTLD,
> gTLD and registrars. The rest are all on the demand side.
Please read the answers to the questions posed by the g-TLD registries to
the cctlds about the ccSO* (*= in formation ) and appreciate that ccTLds are
more than suppliers and are obliged to represent the interests of users and
individual registrants amongst others in their Local Internet Communities.
Local (cc) internet policies are the compromise product worked out by the
interaction of consultation among these groups.
While not all of us are as good at this as we should, and there is room for
improvement, re-delegation is the consequence of failure. Accordingly,
cctlds also represent the demand side.
>Moreover, only 2
> of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement any consensus
> policies developed. That means that the supply organizations who are most
> directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21 votes on the
NC.
By which you mean contractually bound by a contract with ICANN to implement
policies developed within ICANN. Be aware that the rest of the world runs
to different rules. Try and appreciate that most of us are not much affected
by gTLD policy, but that US citizens, who have tended to ignore their cc and
opt for the generics, tend to be more interested in g-TLD policy.
In my country, the registry is contractually bound by policies developed by
the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.
That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD policies, while
the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and the voluntary
policies across the ccTLds.
Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Chair, International Affairs
InternetNZ
64 4 499 8959
64 21 49 9888
fax 64 4 471 0672
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|