[ga] Re: [council] Fw: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD"Oversight" Body?

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

All assembly members,

  Reposted (Not cross posted per Patrick Corliss rant),
from the NCDNJC list along with my response.  This may be
of interest to the GA members...

============== Post from NCDNHC starts here ==========


YJ and all,

  It would seem to me that the proper body for such a proposed oversight
body would be the DNSO GA.  I am sorry if this is in contrast to your
view
in this instance.  But the NCDNHC is only one constituency within the
DNSO.  The DNSO GA allows participation of any constituency
member as well as others.  Therefore the reason for my suggestion of
the DNSO GA.

YJ Park wrote:

> Those who are concerned in NCDNHC's ccTLD resolution,
>
> NCDNHC resolution comprised of three parts.
> Please, note that each resolution was passed separately
> and finally it was passed in one motion after three different
> voting to make it easier in presenting resolutions in the forum.
>
> 1st, support for forming a body which would provide technical
> assistance to developing countries' ccTLD registries.
> (Proposed by Hakikur and no objection from the community.)
>
> 2nd, NCDNHC's body which will study whether the current
> ICP-1 and RFC-1591 documents need to be modified, supplemented,
> or replaced by a new document which will ensure ccTLD admin
> adhere to community-based, community-supported and neutral
> registry operations of the ccTLD registries in consonance with
> ICANN's policy of ensuring a neutral gTLD registry.
> (Proposed by Horacio and have raised concerns from the community.)
>
> Due to Horacio's absence in the meeting, his motion was explained
> by several people to understand his motion.
>
> FYI, the body formation by NCDNHC also raised concerns during the
> discussion on June 1st whether NCDNHC has such resources and it
> was very unclear what kind of roles or functions are expected from such
> a body. However, it is very clear that nobody in the constituency, as far
> as I understand, considers such a body can paly "oversight" role, which
> has been raised by ccTLD communities. The general rationale which I
> understood was NCDNHC has to be involved with ccTLD issues as part
> of local Internet community which is also clearly written in ccTLD's
> "Best Practice" document.
>
> 3rd, My ammendment addresses the importance of consulation with
> local Internet community which should not exclude non-commercial
> voices and more open discussion under the assumption that ccTLD
> is one of DNSO constituencies.
>
> However, under ccSO condition as proposed in Stockholm, this motion
> can be changed in the ccSO context.
>
> ccSO is expected to elaborate "local Internet community" and is to
> facilitate its consultation with appropriate bodies and parties including
> local Internet community.
>
> DNSO/ICANN has been occupied with gTLD concerns from its
> beginning and little chances to be involved with ccTLD concerns.
> i.e. DNSO has looked into Verisign contract whether it is fair to
> the global Internet community. With the same logic, I do believe
> ccTLD contract should be consulted with the relevant community
> in an open manner. Such ccTLD contract or issues will affect
> ISPs, Registrars, Non-commecial folks, business in the same
> fashion the gTLD affects to them.
>
> If DNSO is not the proper place to have such an open forum,
> ccTLD constituency can propose ccSO which will encompass
> its relevant stakeholders in the form of General Assembly such as
> local Internet community which is expected to be defined with
> more clean-cut mode rather than leaving a blank which can be
> arbitrarily changed without consistancy.
>
> Hoping this will clear the concerns raised by some parts of
> the community, NCDNHC is willing to participate in its further
> ccTLD discussion as part of "Local Internet Community".
>
> Regards,
> YJ
>
> > My advice is for ccTLD constituency members to read the
> > resolution, enter into discussions with its authors (Hakikur Rahman,
> > YJ Park, and Horacio Cadiz) about what the rationale was,
> > correct any misperceptions they might have, and explain how the
> > proposed new SO structure might allay those concerns.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > > Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is very disturbing. Particularly considering the fact that no one
> > from
> > > > the NCDNHC consulted with or formally notified the ccTLD constituency.
> > It
> > > > sounds like the NCDNHC wants to set up a "regulatory board" over
> ccTLDs.
> > > >
> > > > I am looking forward to an expmanation of this from the NCDNHC to the
> > ccTLD,
> > > > in some kind of direct communication.
> > > >
> > > > Peter de Blanc
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> > > > [mailto:owner-cctld-discuss@wwtld.org]On Behalf Of J. William Semich
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:55 PM
> > > > To: cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> > > > Subject: [cctld-discuss] NCDNHC To Be ccTLD "Oversight" Body?
> > > > Importance: High
> > > >
> > > > See below. from the minutes of the meeting (and actions) of the
> > > > Noncommercial Domain Name Holders Constituency during their meeting in
> > > > Stockholm. The NCDNHC:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is about to begin a "witch hunt" for ccTLDs who are violating
> > RFC-1591
> > > > (proposed by a person who is attempting to redelegate .PH);
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > 2. Plans to determine exactly who/what is the "local Internet
> community"
> > > > when it comes to ccTLD redelegations, and to require DNSO "approval"
> of
> > > > ccTLD agreements with ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > These proposals were *approved* at the meeting of the noncommercial
> > > > constituency during the ICANN sessions in Stockholm.
> > > >
> > > > With friends like these, who needs enemies?
> > > >
> > > > Bill Semich
> > > > .NU Domain
> > > >
> > > > >Delivered-To: bsemich@mail.nu
> > > > >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:02:09 -0400
> > > > >From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> > > > >To: <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> > > > >Subject: Stockholm meeting minutes [long]
> > > > >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org>
> > > > >List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0
> > > > >List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> > > > >List-Owner: <mailto:owner-ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
> > > > >Reply-To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> > > > >Sender: bounce-ncdnhc-discuss-1719@lyris.isoc.org
> > > > >X-Lyris-Message-Id:
> > > > <LYR1719-46427-2001.06.06-11.46.38--bsemich#MAIL.NU@lyris.isoc.org>
> > > > >
> > > > >Minutes
> > > > >Noncommercial constituency meeting, June 1, 2001
> > > > >
> > > > >Meeting called to order 9 am
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > >Resolutions
> > > > ...
> > > > >ccTLD resolution
> > > > >Motion has three distinct parts. Zakaria Amar takes
> > > > >responsibility for moving the first part, regarding
> > > > >assistance to developing countries' cctlds. Kathy
> > > > >Kliman and Zakaria amend the language slightly to
> > > > >improve clarity, adding "technical and policy"
> > > > >assistance and some specific examples. That amendment
> > > > >passes 25 for, 2 against, 4 abstentions.
> > > > >
> > > > >Discussion of second part of resolution (Horacio Cadiz
> > > > >amendment), concerning formation of a NCDNHC committee
> > > > >to "investigate violations of ICP1 and RFC 1591."
> > > > >Example of the Philippines discussed.
> > > > >Criticism of this section by Adam Peake and Raul
> > > > >Echeberria: bad idea to get our constituency in the
> > > > >middle of this, also we lack the resources and
> > > > >capability to really investigate such problems. Motion
> > > > >to delete this part of the resolution fails 15
> > > > >against, 12 in favor, 4 abstentions.
> > > > >
> > > > >Moves on to a discussion of YJ Park's amendment,
> > > > >concerning a) consultation with local Internet
> > > > >community and the DNSO in making delegation or re-
> > > > >delegation decisions, and b) how ccTLD contracts
> > > > >should go through the DNSO process, and not be worked
> > > > >out directly between ccTLDs and ICANN management.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <sigh>
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > > --
> > > > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > > > Discussion Mailing list
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > > > Discussion Mailing list
> > >
> > > --
> > > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > > Discussion Mailing list
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

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