Re: [ga] Re: [cctld-discuss] FW: [ccnso-ag] ccNSO PDP Preliminary Recommendation Posted

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

Dave and all assembly members,

  Like many ICANN preliminary recommendation documents this one
seems to have been hurriedly jumbled together in a somewhat unprofessional
and sloppy manner.  Almost knee jerk in it's nature.  Hence your observations

Dave, are indeed well founded.

DPF wrote:

> I am posting my comments on this to the GA list because the ccTLD list
> seems to have DNS problems and keeps rejecting my e-mails saying
> sender domain does not exist.  On-topic for here anyway.
>
> DPF
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:40:31 +1100, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au>
> wrote:
>
> >The ccNSO-AG's preliminary recommendation for a ccNSO policy-development
> >process has been posted at
> ><http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/ccnsoag-report-11nov02.htm>
>
> Thanks for the useful document.  Upon first reading there are a few
> things which clarification would help with.  Perhaps a member of the
> Assistance Group would be able to elaborate.
>
>  If the process is merely a policy of the Board is there any safeguard
> against the Board changing it by simple majority at any time?  Can the
> policy process itself be entrenched?  Perhaps made a condition of
> contract?
>
> I think most ccTLDs are of the view that any global policies developed
> should be rare indeed and ones that have overwhelming consensus.  In
> view of that, the thresholds of 33% of Council to initiate seem far
> too low.  Also one should have a safeguard of minimum notice period of
> a motion to initiate to ensure all regions are represented.
>
> Every step relies pretty much on votes of the ccSO Council rather than
> the entire ccSO.  As the global membership of ccSO is limited and well
> defined I think there should be a step involving a vote by all ccTLDs.
> Sole reliance on voting by regional reps on the Council can lead to
> lack of a vote by some ccTLDs especially if they are in a permanent
> minority in their region.
>
> The term "Issue Manager" suddenly appears in the document without
> defining what this is and who appoints them.  One can work some of
> this out implicitly but a explicit reference would be useful.
>
> The term "Supermajority" while defined elsewhere within ICANN should
> also be defined in this document so it can be read and comprehended as
> a stand alone document.
>
> I am not convinced that two Regions alone should be able to force a
> PDP initiation.  Again these should be very very rare.  I would prefer
> a two thirds Council majority or 100% from three Regions.  And in the
> case of a recommendation that this is out of scope, an 80% Council
> vote needed or alternatively a two thirds vote of all member ccTLDs.
> Main thrust is threshold too low.
>
> 20 days public participation is far too short for outreach to 200+
> ccTLD local internet communities.  Again we don't want lots of ccTLD
> policy being made quickly.  This should be a rarely used process.  I
> would suggest 60 days as being more appropriate.  20 days won' even
> allow individual ccTLDs to discuss issues at a regular monthly
> meeting.
>
> Likewise I would also allow 60 days for formulating regional
> positions.
>
> The Board by supermajority may vote to decline a recommendation from
> the Council.  I note this has happened on numerous occasion with the
> DNSO so may not be an unexpected event.  What is not clear if whether
> the Board can substitute its own policy for the one it declines.  This
> is very crucial to clarify.
>
> The acceptability of the proposed process will also depend on other
> factors such as composition of ccSO Council and most importantly how
> any policy will be implemented.  As 95% of ccTLDs do not have signed
> contracts, presumably such policy will be voluntarily implemented.  Or
> will ccSO membership rights be tied to signing a contract?  If so then
> such contracts may want a guarantee of the policy process not being
> able to be changed by the Board unilaterally.
>
> DPF
> --
> E-mail: david@farrar.com
> ICQ:    29964527
> MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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