Re: [ga] your comments

[Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl>]

Dear Joe,

Actually, we may agree more than you think. In Montevideo, the ccTLD
managers present issued a communiqué that said:

	"There is a carefully definable set of global issues which can
	be put through the SO to the ICANN policy making process.
        Each ccTLD is solely responsible for it's decision making except
        for that carefully defined list of global issues mentioned above,
        when ccTLDs agree to be bound by policies formed through the
        ICANN process."

So, it is recognized that there are global issues for which policies
should be formed through the ICANN process. Of course, we must work
on defining this set of global issues, and I trust we would be able
to do it if we started working on it.

Patricio Poblete
NIC Chile

On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:35:52AM -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
> Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> 
>                                                                                           
>  the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the                                        
>  ICANN project since its inception                                                        
>                                                                                           
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
> also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
> more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
> position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
> only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
> that they don't care to follow.  We might be able to agree that all parties
> could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
> parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
> individual national governments.  But there is still a core issue:  do the
> operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
> global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities to
> their local Internet community?  If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
> establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global community.
> This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
> the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely that
> we will make much progress.  From your posting and its continuing criticism
> of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress.  Nevertheless, I
> look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
> closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
--
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