Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

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

Hi Joe
Just a quick comment on one part of your post below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 4:55 AM
Subject: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions


>.  The ccSO issue is
> complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
> relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
> elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
> refused to recognize as having any effect on them.

This is not the situation at all -the reverse is true in fact, and I am glad
of the oportunity to correct any misunderstanding.

The cctlds meeting in Montevideo agreed that there * were * a narrow range
of issues about which ICANN-made policy would be binding on ccTLDs.

There is no agreement yet, admittedly, on what those issues are, but they
will relate to technical issues of interoperability -at first.(I personally
believe that once a stable and mutually trusting cooperation is reached on
those issues, there is an excellent opportunity to build on, and to develop
other policies of mutual advantage.)

It is also apparent that each cctld will have a contract with ICANN, and
that those contracts are likely to include an undertaking by the cc to
contribute to the funding of ICANN. The amount of that funding will probably
not be specified, but rather provide for a process by which those amounts
are calculated. (This is, indeed, the method adopted in the 2 contracts
signed to date).

The cctlds believe that the proper forum for the process by which such a
funding policy, and those technical interoperability policies are developed
is the ccSupport Organisation under development.

One of the proper functions of an SO is to elect Board members familiar at
least with the policy issues emanating from the SO which elected them. The
ccSO will be no different.

So, the correct position is that if there are to be policies binding on the
ccTLDs, then they are to be made in a forum dedicated to that process, AND
that they will be carried forward to a board containing their elected reps.
And the Montevideo decision was that  there were such policies.

I have always been surprised that the Board did not react favourably to what
I thought was an historic decision in relation to the cctld -ICANN
relationship.

I hope this is useful.

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
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