Re: [ga] Questions about the ccSO Proposal

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

Bret and all assembly members,

  Pardon me, but I only see TWO questions here, along with several
suggestions and background statements.  No offense meant in my
response here, but I thought it was worth point out clearly.
(More below Bretts background suggestions, comments
and observations).

Bret Fausett wrote:

> After reading the ccTLD communique and hearing more about the proposal over
> the remote participation feed, I have a few thoughts and questions.
>
> * The current DNSO is reasonably balanced between "suppliers" of DNS
> services (gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, Registrars, and ISPs) and
> "consumers" of DNS services (B&C, NCDNHC, IPC, and perhaps one day,
> Individuals).

  Well because there is not viable representation of individuals or REAL
stakeholders, I can't see how the DNSO is well balanced as you seem to
Brett.  As has been pointed out on a number of occasions on this forum,
individual stakeholders represent more than 80% of the Domain Name
holders/owners.  And therefore it seems reasonable to conclude,
that individual stakeholders are grossly underrepresented.  There
is not reasonable reason why such a situation should exist and never
has been...

> It's not clear from the ccTLD proposal whether a proposed ccSO
> would have any representation for the "consumer" side interests now
> represented within the DNSO.

Again, what "Consumer" representation are you referring to?

>
>
> Registrants, of course, have the same interests in the policies of the
> ccTLDs as they do with gTLDs. These interests include domain name rights,
> intellectual property rights, access to market issues, and whois access and
> data privacy concerns.

  Very much agreed.  Hence the need to the opening up of the DNSO GA
and greater representation on the ICANN BoD and the NC that is
proportional to the roughly +80% of the domain names currently held.

> A reasonable ccSO structure would ensure that ccSO
> consensus policies were not simply the consensus of the TLD managers, but a
> consensus of the larger community having reasonable interests in the ccTLDs,
> including the "consumer" interests now present in the DNSO.

  This would seem reasonable, yes...  BUt I don't see how the current
ICANN BoD with possibly two exceptions, could require such from
any potential ccSO as the @large is yet to be adequately formed,
and who's budget has been cut to US $-0- for new elections...

>
>
> Depending on the issue, a "consensus policy" coming from a group of
> like-minded ccTLD managers would not really be a consensus of the impacted
> community, as ccTLD policies affect a wider group than the companies who
> manage the ccTLD registries. Building a new structure for representation of
> other stakeholders within the ccSO, however, might well prove redundant to
> the existing facilities within the DNSO.

  Agreed.

>
>
> The ccTLD communique indicates that it has begun an outreach effort to some
> of the existing DNSO constituencies, for which the ccTLDs should be
> commended. Those discussions need to continue, and I'll be interested to
> hear how the ccTLDs propose to address this representation/consensus issue.
>
> * Under the current ICANN bylaws, each Supporting Organization effectively
> has "veto power" over policy initiatives originating within other Supporting
> Organizations. ("...the Board shall accept the recommendations of a
> Supporting Organization if the Board finds that the recommended policy
> ...(4) is not reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization."
> Article III, Section 2(e)).

  Yes, this is a huge flaw in the ICANN bylaws that has been discussed
and debated on a number of occasions.  Yet the ICANN BoD has either
decided to ignore subsequent suggestions to repeal this article or otherwise
modify it adequately...

>
>
> So to create a ccSO would be to give the ccTLD registries veto power over
> DNSO proposals that they "reasonably opposed."
>
> A growing number of ccTLDs count themselves as competitors to gTLDs, and
> this veto power potentially could be used for anti-competitive purposes.

  It could and likely would on occasion.  That's how the free market place
currently works in a modern world.

>
>
> * Another obvious question about any new SO is where do the new Board seats
> come from?
>
> At present, there's a balance between the At Large representatives (even
> though four remain non-elected), and the SO representatives. This is a
> balance that's important to retain, at least through the end of the ALSC
> process.

  Agreed.  Nice of you to answer your own question for the BoD members
here Brett!  >;)

>
>
> If a ccSO proposal is accepted, one reasonable proposal might be to give
> each of the four SOs *two* Boards seats, with one Board seat elected by the
> councils of *all four* SOs.

  This suggestion would seem to require that the total number of BOD seats
be expanded in order to have the proper "Balance", which of course does
not exist now....

>
>
> * Finally, it's not clear what issues the ccTLDs have with their current
> relationship with ICANN and the DNSO that are made better by the creation of
> a separate constituency and guaranteed seats on the Board. The current
> contract negotiations with ccTLDs, for example, will be handled by Staff as
> "implementation issues" under existing policy. So guaranteed *Board seats*
> don't solve any immediate ccTLD issues. While the budget has an obvious
> impact on the ccTLDs, they appear to be adequately represented on ICANN's
> budget committee.

  In that the ICANN BoD has dictated that the ccTLD's should provide for
a full 1/3 of ICANN seemingly our of control expanding budget, I can
well understand why the ccTLD community wish to have seats on the board
that is commensurate with that budget requirement....

>
>
> If the proposed move is primarily due to the concern of "taxation without
> representation," then the same case could be made for the gTLDs and the
> Registrars, depending on future DNSO election outcomes. In fact, the
> registrant community itself, which pays service fees to the registries and
> registrars also could reasonably claim that it supports ICANN financially
> too, albeit indirectly. How far will ICANN allow the creation of new SOs out
> of existing SOs go?

  Good question.  And how far does the ever out of control expanding
ICANN BoD budget go?

>
>
> Speaking as someone who participated in the DNSO's creation and who has
> followed it closely since that time, I'm also not aware of any significant
> ccTLD initiatives that were presented to the Names Council and the larger
> DNSO community and which were voted down or otherwise rebuffed. While many
> issues occupying the DNSO's agenda are focused on non-ccTLD issues, this
> doesn't mean that ccTLD issues are or will be ignored.
>
> If there have been problems having ccTLD issues addressed within the current
> structure, I'd be interesting in hearing more details.
>
> This is obviously an issue that warrants significant discussion, and I look
> forward to seeing some of these questions addressed.
>
>     -- Bret
>
> --
> 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 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@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