Re: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA

[Adam PEAKE <pja@glocom.ac.jp>]

Peter, could you describe how ccTLDs "represent the interests of users
and individual registrants".

I see some of the better managed ccTLDs representing local the Internet
industry (JPNIC is good example, very few Japanese ISPs who are not
members of JPNIC), but very few (.nz and .ca?) show an interest in
individual registrants or user's interests. 

Whatever.  I think it's pretty clear that the registrars, gTLDs and
ccTLDs are under represented in the DNSO. The 4 user constituencies are
so farcically unrepresentative of their potential constituencies (and
none show any interest in outreach) that a DNSO where the three
suppliers elect people to the board would be a very sensible step forward.

Thanks,

Adam

Adam Peake
GLOCOM Tokyo



Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> To: "'Patrick Corliss'" <patrick@quad.net.au>; "Philip Sheppard"
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> Cc: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency and the GA
> 
> > Patrick,
> >
> > Without detracting from your point about the individuals consitutuency, it
> > seems to me that only 3 of the 7 constituencies represent suppliers:
> ccTLD,
> > gTLD and registrars.  The rest are all on the demand side.
> 
> Please read the answers to the questions posed by the g-TLD registries to
> the cctlds about the ccSO* (*= in formation ) and appreciate that ccTLds are
> more than suppliers and are obliged to represent the interests of users and
> individual registrants amongst others in their Local Internet Communities.
> 
> Local (cc) internet policies are the compromise product worked out by the
> interaction of consultation among these groups.
> While not all of us are as good at this as we should, and there is room for
> improvement, re-delegation is the consequence of failure.  Accordingly,
> cctlds also represent the demand side.
> 
> >Moreover, only 2
> > of the 7 are actually required contractually to implement any consensus
> > policies developed.  That means that the supply organizations who are most
> > directly impacted by consensus policies only have six of 21 votes on the
> NC.
> 
> By which you mean contractually bound by a contract with ICANN to implement
> policies developed within ICANN.  Be aware that the rest of the world runs
> to different rules. Try and appreciate that most of us are not much affected
> by gTLD policy, but that US citizens, who have tended to ignore their cc and
> opt for the generics, tend to be more interested in g-TLD policy.
> 
> In my country, the registry is contractually bound by policies developed by
> the consensus processes adopted by InternetNZ.
> 
> That is why, incidentally, the DNSO needs to remain as it is, as the
> debating chamber for the development of consensus policies affecting the
> g-TLDs, including those interested in and affected by gTLD policies, while
> the ccSO* is the forum for developing both the binding and the voluntary
> policies across the ccTLds.
> 
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Chair, International Affairs
> InternetNZ
> 64 4 499 8959
> 64 21 49 9888
> 
> fax 64 4 471 0672
> 
> --
> 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