Re: [ga-icann] ASO + PSO = TSO Technical Supporting Organisation

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

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Joanna
>
> > The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest
> for
> > the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client. If the ccTLDs
> > represent 244 countries and each has 1 vote on an issue, how many votes do
> > registrants have? The balance of power has to be created by a separate SO
> > for registrants, so that the ccTLDSO vote and the RegsitrantSO is
> > commensurate, one vote each. I would like to hear from the ccTLDs on this
> > issue.
>
> I much prefer a three-way split between supply, demand and technical
> infrastructure (such as ISPs and telcos).  That's natural and works pretty
> well in Australia.

  I also agree with Patricks point here.  However the demand side should drive
technical innovation and such innovation should be and can be implemented
as that demand becomes known or even only noticed.  Marketing can
follow later or on an as we go basis...

>
>
> On the "supply" side you have Registries, Registrars, joint
> Registry-Registrars and Registration Service Providers (such as OpenSRS
> reselleres).  On the "demand" side you have business, non-commercial and
> individual.

  Also on the demand side you have some technical innovators as well...

>
>
> In my case I am a domain name owner with domains in both gTLDs and ccTLDs.
> I cannot see that I need to have two voices to reflect my two different
> views.  However, at the moment, the balance of power is strongly tilted
> towards supply.  This needs to be redressed.

  Many of our members [INEGroup] have Domain Names in both
gTLD's and ccTLD name spaces.  However most of these members
do not have two different points of view in this area, as it is not required
to have such.  We [INEGRoup] are in agreement that the demand side
is largely being ignored or TOLD what they should have, need or otherwise
want.  As such, they have become incensed and dismayed.  The demand
a voice and a vote on each and every policy that ICANN may consider
and demand to propose their own as well dispose such policies that may
effect them...

>
>
> The problem is seen both in the current SOs where the DNSO plays a
> subordinate role and in the 7 categories of constituencies included in the
> constituency setup.  In fact the whole structure makes very little sense
> from a purely logical viewpoint.

  This has been [INEGroup's] contention all along...

>
>
> Why could we not combine the Address Supporting Organisation and the
> Protocol Supporting Organisation into a single Technical Supporting
> Organisation ("TSO")?  There is no reason for ISPs and connectivity
> providers to be even a constituency in the DNSO as they are more properly
> positioned in the TSO.

  Good point here...

>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html