Re: [ga] Re: The ccTLD position

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

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <board@aptld.org>; "icann board address"
> <icann-board@icann.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:27 PM
> Subject: Re: The ccTLD position (was Re: [ga] taking positions on country
> specific legislation
>
> > Peter and all assembly members,
> >
> >   This suggestion may well be a good one, but is more difficult given the
> > level of distrust that the ICANN BoD and staff have both engendered
> > and deserved of late sense MDR.
> >
>
> Thank you.
> We are working with the staff to attempt to close any communication gaps, at
> least as far as our issues are concerned. Part of our situation is that by
> effectively withdrawing from the DNSO some long time ago, we have not been
> putting our own message across as effectively as we might.

  First, you are very welcome, Peter!  >;)

  It may have been a long term mistake to withdraw from the DNSO.  However
it is from our members, many of whom are registrants in various ccTLD's,
that the action to do so in Stockholm, sent a strong message to the questionably

legitimate current ICANN BoD, and staff that the CCTLD's are being ask
for a large portion of ICANN" budget, with out a commensurate level of
representation on the ICANN BoD.  As I and many of our members, this
is how we understand the core concerns of the ccTLD's.  We also
believe that such is more than justified.  Yet, it seems that sense MDR,
and more especially sense Stockholm, there seems to be the beginnings
or retribution coming from the questionably legitimate ICANN BoD,
towards the existing operators/managment of the ccTLD registries.
We wonder if this is not causal to divide the ccTLD registries.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >   First of all it has already been shown that costs relative to an
> At-Large
> > membership
> > is minimal despite it's size, but would be very difficult to be considered
> > legitimate
> > should ANY stakeholder be selectively excluded or Censored.
>
> And if the country code registrars lend their support to the collection of
> names and fees from cctld registrants who wish to take part in the At Large,
> this cost will be even lower.

  Agreed this could be effected.  However it would be a form of "Tax"
that many will not wish to pay or feel is unjustified in that ICANN is supposed
to collect it's funds from voluntary means.

>
>
> It would not, in my view be done free, nor is that suggested, but a further
> slight load on the existing infrastructure is much cheaper than setting one
> up.

  Also agreed here as well.  However one may wish to take care in how
this is to be done.  In other words, the ends, does not justify the means
necessarily.  As such the registrants and users should have a vote on how
this is to be accomplished of the ccTLD's (Registrants) and All users for
the (Stakeholders/usres).

>
>
> If membership is restricted to those IDNH's, I suggest this is not a
> question of legitimacy -those are certainly a "legitimate" interest group,
> but rather one of completeness.

  Indeed IDNH's are legitimate stakeholders.  However so are non-domain
name holders.  And one no more than the other...

>
>
> If you believe there is a wider grouping, how, practically, would you
> identify them and process them into the organisation?

  I am not sure which organization you are referencing here?  The At-Large
or the proposed ccSO?

>
>
> And given the nature of this process, would you hold up an advance which
> created an At Large with a core legitimate group, and forego the opportunity
> to argue for its expansion once its base was solid, because you wanted it
> broad from the start?

  Yes I and all of our members (Still growing) would, most definitely!
NO stakeholder is s "Second Class Citizen!"  Nor under legitimatize and
broadly long standing democratic principals would allow for such a
"Second Class Status"!

> That runs the risk of creating a perpetual martyr
> class.
> >
> >   As for Mike Roberts paper, a basic slur upon the DNSO GA in particular
> > IS, and should not be a factor in any rational person/stakeholders mind in
> > the makeup of the At-Large.  The ALSC's obviously skewed and well known
> > previously determined ideological bent, is NOT a representation of the
> > Forum's broad ranging consensus of comments expressed on that forum.
> >
>
> I'd rather focus on their arguments and conclusions.

  Indeed!  And I did in our original response to Mike Roberts inane
paper.  See ALSC Archives for further details...

>
>
> > > OTOH, the ccSO is a force that has emerged under a true bottom up
> consensus,
> > > not only of those directly affected, but also with support from a
> majority
> > > of other constituencies.
> >
> >   I don't believe that I have seen a supporting resolution for the
> formation
> > of a ccSO coming from any of the other constituency's.  If such a document
> > outlining your contention of such support could you please provide us
> > all with a pointer(URL) to it?
> >
> See the presentations of IPC, ISPC and BC constituencies to the Stockholm
> forum, where explicit support was announced. This has been confirmed by
> those groups in MVO.

  I did.  And again I did not see a definitive supporting document..  But
did see qualified ones...

>
>
> The Non-Coms agree that it is a bottom up, and genuine need, but are
> concerned about the seats question. Milton Mueller said in our public
> meeting that if the 9 seats were safe they would be right alongside us
> cheering.

  Exactly!  And therefore is conditional.

>
>
> The registry constituency has asked a series of questions, and we are going
> to dialogue further with them ,but no opposition has been voiced. Their
> reaction, in fact appears much more to be "if you get one , we want one
> too".

  Yes, and here inlies the problem.  If  you (The ccTLD's) get one or two,
We ( The other Constituencies) was and additional or equal number of
BoD seats.

> Their explicit concern seems with the small number of cctlds that
> choose to market broadly.

  Yes, this is a small number now.   But will be growing...

> The concern is that the ccSO might allow policies
> which would competitively disadvantage the gTLDs against those.

  This should not be done!  In fact, I doubt that if attempted, it will be
strongly resisted and may cause to further fragment the DNS.

>
>
> To be fair, every one is waiting for further clarity of the detail before
> providing commitment, which we are now working on.

  Clarity?  Clarity of what?

>
>
> Regards
>
> --
> 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

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