Re: Relations with the ccTLDs (was Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

Dear Vint
Thank you for your prompt response.

In relation to ICP-1, my posting, the Centr paper and the recent ga posting
by Patricio Poblete reflect the fact that the cctld community regard ICP-1
as dealing with policy, not implementation changes.

Elevating the role of Governments to be the prime consideration in a change
of cctld manager is with respect, a change of policy, not a change of
implementation mechanism.

Because the discussion about adopting this was not made public in accordance
with the bylaws, the Board has been deprived of an opportunity to hear the
community view on this point. ICANN's legitimacy is affected.

In relation to WLS, I remain concerned by your correspondence with Danny
Younger concerning adoption by the board of consensus. In his recent ga
posting, he sets out the details of the apparent consensus, which has been
ignored. My particular concern, and which you are yet to address is the
approach the Board might take were there to be a ccSO.

The ccSO, as we have currently proposed it, will conduct cctld policy
development in the 5 ICANN regions. Only a policy passing by a 2/3 majority
in each region will be passed to the International Council. Once adopted by
the Council we propose it should be passed to the ICANN Board.

You will appreciate that after the effort that we will have gone through to
achieve agreement among two thirds of the world's cctlds in each region on a
matter affecting us, we will not appreciate the Board arrogating to itself
any other power than to ratify such a policy, or to remit it with reasons.

The suggestion that such a process can be circumvented or subverted by a
board passing a policy without notice and declaring it to be, not policy,
but an implementation, makes my task in persuading cctlds that ICANN
represents an opportunity rather difficult.

The cctlds have previously said that a White Paper principles-based ICANN,
with a ccSO that makes policy in relation to the narrow range of cctld
issues within the ICANN mandate would be supportable. I would be grateful
for any assurances from you I could present to the ccTLDs on this crucial
issue. As you may know, Centr has a meeting next week, at which it is
consulting with the ITU. The following week, APTLD is meeting and consulting
with regional GAC members, including the Chair of the GAC.  The other
regions are discussing their positions. Any input from you would be most
welcome.

Perhaps an undertaking that ICP-1 shall be referred to the ccSO promptly
after its formation would be an indication of the way forward.

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association
Adcom meeting Chair



--
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