The ccTLD position (was Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

["Peter Dengate-Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>; "Don Evans"
<DEvans@doc.gov>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>; "'Bruce James'"
<bmjames@swbell.net>; "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation


> I review this older post and ask if it is not exactly on point today as
the
> ccTLDs fight to take away seats from the at large while power brokers
promise
> certain votes to certain interests.

Please, a little accuracy, even if does damage your hyperbole.
The cctlds are not fighting to take away at large seats.

The cctlds agreed in an historic decision in Montevideo, that there were a
narrow range of global policy issues affecting ccTLds which the cc's would
be prepared to have developed through the ICANN consensus policy development
process.

That meant they agreed to be bound, within their ccTLDs, to implement the
outcome of those decisions.

(See the Montevideo communique, posted to this list.)

An obvious political consequence of that is for the CCTlds to ensure that
they have an appropriately balanced voice in the ICANN structure, which can
be heard while that policy is being developed. No one surely expects them to
accede to policies being made, which will bind them, in a forum they have
no, or insufficient voice in.

There is no  credible doubt that the proper forum for the discussion of
those cc issues is a ccSO.

There is no disagreement with our statement that the DNSO is the forum for
development of generic domain name issues. (Please note this is not the
place for a performance comment on how well the DNSO might be fulfilling
this role).

There is no disagreement that the DNSO is quite the wrong place for cc
issues such as the ICANN contract, cc Funding etc to be debated.

The fact is that an SO provides for board representation. We do not say this
should come at the "expense" of any other group's entitlement, whether
vested or otherwise, in Board seats.

The fact that there is a formidable challenge to the At Large Movement
having 9 seats is not of the ccTLDs making.

In the absence of creating new seats, we accept that our ccSO proposal will
require a re-allocation of existing seats. There are a large number of
factors which will go into the Board's re-evaluation of the balance of
representation in ICANN.

Once there is acceptance of the ccSO in principle, we expect to take part
with other stakeholders in discussions about that balance. That's a debate
we look forward to. In the meantime, lets stick to the facts.

Regards,

Peter Dengate Thrush
Co-Chair ccTLD Montevideo Meeting.

Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association




--
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