RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

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

Jefsey

Your posting makes a lot of senbse, particularly the "nicSO"

The ccTLDs need to maintain close contact with the other constituencies.
Perhaps the idea of ccTLD holding seates on the Names Council for policy
development would work. Assuming the ccTLDs had a SO, the ccTLD reps on
the NC would NOT participate in voting for NC-elected ICANN board
directors.

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:57 AM
To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; Peter Dengate-Thrush
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force


Dear Peter and Michael,
Two issues there:

1) from the ALSC report - the ccTLD are not trusted TLDs. Our problem is
to 
avoid an RSC (root service centers) disagreements. USG root by ICANN, 
China, could be Europe, Value Added Roots, etc... This calls for having 
their different Root Server Galaxies coordinated (10 of the 13 ICANN
root 
servers on the US soil is already a major reliability problem). I have
no 
problem in having the ICANN assuming the secretariat the "Internet
Campus".

2) as far as the ICANN structure is concerned: rather than every 
constituency becoming an SO, the simplest would be to accept that 
Constituencies are the basic ICANN component, that several are missing,
and 
that they share their common concerns and advices to the BoD through the

various SOs they may be concerned with. The SOs being permanent 
constituency specialized WGs with their own dedicated Council and GA.

It is necessary that NICs - i.e. ccTLD Managers as the trustee of their
LIC 
[attending to their LIC real needs is their source of revenues if they
want 
to  survive] - should belong to a NICSO. This will help them developing,

innovating in different areas, creating ad-hoc joint services, regional 
alliances... The Internet Users Constituency, the BC Constituency, the 
SMEConstituency, ISPs should belong to such an SO too. Special ties with

the GAC and a Consumer organizations Consultative Council to be 
formed  would help them.

It is obvious that ccTLDs - as Registries (please reread RFC 1591) -
should 
stay in DNSO dedicated to DNServices issues with gTLDs, sTLDs,
Registrars, 
Registrants, Internet Users, ISPs and IPC.

It seems strange they do not share in the ASO for IP addresses and in
PSO 
for innovation, language, documentation  etc ... issues.

Please let forget a minute Joe Sims and his outdated organizational and 
no-members concepts, the local Californian law and the US Tax system. As

one of the new members asked me "when do they talk about the Internet?".

Let get real. Let open the windows and look outside!
This is the Internet, not the USPS ...

Jefsey




At 02:08 31/08/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Actually, I kind of wonder
>1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
>2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
>
>On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:
> > From: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
> > > On 30 Aug 2001, at 10:39, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > > > On 2001-08-29 18:38:46 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I thought that DNSO stood for DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING 
> > > > >ORGANIZATION. How in the world can that be transformed so that 
> > > > >it no longer has responsibility for domain name policy?
> > > >
> > > > Look at the ccTLDs.  Responsibility for domain name policy 
> > > > _will_ be split over multiple SOs.
> > >
> > > ccTLDs should have complete control over their policies, domain or

> > > otherwise.  The DNSO should continue to have the same concerns it 
> > > has had.
> >
> > Agreed.
> > Its because the cc's actually have complete control over their 
> > policies
> that
> > makes them so different from the gTLDs, which are "owned and 
> > controlled" by ICANN.
> >
> > The cc's are responsible to their Local Internet Community, which is

> > a self defining community,  and which more and more involves the 
> > government of the territory whose name corresponds to the 2 letter 
> > ISO code for that territory.
> >
> > Its because the DNSO has in fact only ever dealt with gTLD domain 
> > name issues that the cc's have voted to withdraw. The DNSO was never

> > intended or able to affect ccTLD domain name issues.
> >
> > > The at-large OTOH encompasses the whole enchilada.  The ccTLD SO 
> > > may also encompass more than just domain names, as well as being 
> > > autonomous and having the right to participate or not in the ICANN

> > > process.  The fact that most of them choose to participate is good

> > > for ICANN, whether they adopt all or some of ICANN's policies.  
> > > They, also need a stronger voice.
> > >
> > > I hope the board gets the message.
> >
> > Me, too. I am confident that it has.

--
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