RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

[vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET>]

There is a process for SO creation and it is found in the ByLaws (section 3 in Article VI Supporting Organizations).

there should be a copy of the bylaws on the www.icann.org website. New constituencies in the DNSO can be initiated by  by petition or by board-initiated action (see Article VI-B, section 3(d)).

vint




 At 09:09 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
>Vint,
>
>Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the creation/acceptance
>of an SO?  I was of the impression that there was no such defined process,
>even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.
>
>If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
>formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.
>
>Could you please clarify?
>
>Gene...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of vint cerf
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
>> To: Derek Conant; ga@dnso.org
>> Cc: icann-board@icann.org
>> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>>
>>
>> Derek,
>>
>> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
>>
>> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
>> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
>> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
>> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
>> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
>> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
>> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>>
>> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
>> >The ICANN Board should take into consideration the demonstrated lack of
>> >progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
>> >take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
>> >concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.
>> >
>> >It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status within ICANN
>> >is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
>> >However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
>> >demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
>> >consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
>> >this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
>> >compromised or cheapened.
>> >
>> >The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
>> >upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
>> >holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
>> >faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.
>> >
>> >Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
>> >my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members voted (if I
>> >am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
>> >only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
>> >proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not understand the
>> >process or representations.
>> >
>> >It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
>> >proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
>> >ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
>> >does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
>> >necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
>> >international community.
>> >
>> >This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
>> >GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
>> >proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
>> >community.  The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase with the ICANN
>> >Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show demonstrated
>> >diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
>> >that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status.  This
>> >should then cause the international community to pull together in an
>> >effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies necessary
>> >for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
>> >accelerate ICANN's international objectives.
>> >
>> >My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
>> >group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
>> >applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
>> >applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
>> >status without these requirements could destabilize the integrity of the
>> >DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose momentum or
>> >give up when they fail to work within the DNSO.  The other
>> >constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to want SO status
>> >if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.
>> >
>> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
>> >representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
>> >constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
>> >within ICANN.  I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
>> >narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
>> >outside of the DNSO.  I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
>> >interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
>> >the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
>> >constituencies with valid consensus results.  I explained that this is
>> >what is probably needed first.
>> >
>> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
>> >organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
>> >parties.  A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
>> >International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever) with a broad
>> >scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
>> >constituencies that produce valid consensus.  In my opinion, this is
>> >what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting for.  And, to
>> >protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything less from an
>> >applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
>> >represent the international community.
>> >
>> >If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
>> >representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
>> >Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
>> >they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
>> >ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
>> >seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
>> >difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
>> >difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
>> >the ccTLD constituency.
>> >
>> >The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
>> >comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
>> >requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO status. With all
>> >of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and underdeveloped
>> >organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
>> >ICANN itself to become unstable.
>> >
>> >Derek Conant
>> >DNSGA President and Chairman
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>

--
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