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

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

re: 31 ccTLDs in stockholom

First of all, I believe the count is 40 plus. Second, we (ccTLD) have been
discussing a new form of relationship with ICANN for over a year now.

When combining the unanimous vote in Stockholm, with the votes of other
ccTLDs who were present in Melbourne and Los Angeles, we are at a
significant majority of all currently participating ccTLDs. By currently
partici[ating, i mean that in 2 years, we have reached somewhat over 100
cctLDs, eith on a list, face to face meeting, or by having them participate
in an election.

That said, of course we will put the resolution to the ccTLD list for
endorsement.

Peter de Blanc
chair, ccTLD AdCom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of DPF
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:46 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter


On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700, Derek wrote:

>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 ASO and PSO do not have constituencies so why should the ccSO?

Nevertheless this is an interesting point.  Should the ccTLD
registries be the *only* component of a ccTLD SO?

This is worth considering before we get too far down the track.

>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.

I think you will find those 31 ccTLDs though comprise over 95% of
ccTLD domain names and probably 99% of ICANN funding through ccTLDs.

>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.

On the contrary they have regional grouping, an international
executive cmte and a secretariat.  They seem better organised than
even the DNSO arguably.

>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.

I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
take their ball and play elsewhere.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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