ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

Kristy,

>
>At 08:35 AM 5/30/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>>Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the
>>  ICANN project since its inception
>>
>>
>
>All the information I have read indicates there are NO cctlds who support 
>the ICANN.
>
>Please, Joe, provide us with a list of cctld ICANN supporters.
>


First of all, the quoted passage is not from Joe, but from Peter.

Second, Peter does not get into the controversial point on whether ccTLDs 
are supportive *now*, but that they *have been* very supportive.
This is uncontroversial statement, contained in public records. Please have 
a look at wide evidence at http://www.dnso.org/history/history.html.

Specifically about the DNSO and the GA, may I remind that the first proposal 
of a GA came from Dennis Jennings (CENTR, .ie), and that the first 
Chairperson was Nii Quainor (.gh).

In the early days, the criticism was exactly the opposite, i.e. that the 
DNSO was almost captured by the overwhelming participation of the ccTLDs 
(see records of the Monterrey meeting).

ccTLDs have been not only among the early active supporters, but they were 
about the only Constituency who was providing international representation. 
Besides my good friend Antonio Harris, from Argentina, the only non-OECD 
participants in the process I can remember were ccTLD managers.

The question now should be why this has changed. The question is how did 
ICANN manage to disperse the huge potential for consensus in its initial 
days, and I am asking this not in order to find the scapegoat, but in order 
to get it fixed (or get it better the second time).
Because whichever path will be taken, either fixing the current ICANN or 
appointing newCo, the problems will remain the same. And they only can be 
adressed by discussing the things that are going wrong, and elaborating 
alternatives. Motion-mania, that seems to be the new game in town, is 
leading us nowhere.

Incidentally, supposing that USG rebids the contract, what will be the GA 
position? To hope that they get a better candidate, or to try to lay down 
criteria for choice? And in this second case, how does this differ from 
applying these criteria to reform ICANN?

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

--
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