User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

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

Danny
happy to comment:

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> Peter,
>
> I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that you have
asked,
> "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and registrars to sit
> around the table with their user community?"
>
> In light of this question, can you identify the functional mechanism by
which
> relevant user community input will be respected within the proposed ccSO?
> Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer some
structural
> guidance to the GNSO...
>
Happy to explain the cc position -but it is so different it may not have
many applicable points of precedent for the G-registries.

The point is that every cctld is a mini DNSO at home - or might be. That is,
there is a user community made up of individuals, large and small
businesses, interested academics plus, a registry manager, a set of
governmental objectives (justice, security, commerce,tax, etc) and more and
more-  a set of registrars. How they deal with the balance of those
interests is entirely within the power of that community. This is something
which all seem to be agreed on, and is commonly referred to in  the
shorthand of  "sovereignty".

There is an enormous range of responses to this issue -some local
communities are developed along lines of "western" democratic institutions,
others are still run relatively autocratically but benevolently  by original
"friends of Jon" in the academic community. Many are run as quasi
departments of the state, and among those there is a range of levels
provided for user input into policy making. The top twenty (by registration
no's ) cctlds that all provide some kind of policy making or policy advisory
board, according to my private enquiries and experience.

Any issue about the effectiveness, fairness or whatever in the operation of
a particular cctld's policy making process is entirely within the ambit of
that cctld community, and entirely outside the scope of ICANN's role.

(This is something the ICANN staff have been at pains to point out since the
beginning -there is no way they can begin to intervene in the policy making
in any, let alone many of the 240+ cctlds.)

So, issues of consumer representation need to be dealt with in the local
community, according to the laws and customs of each country. There would be
no quicker way to spell the end of ICANN, and to force governments to
intervene if there was any suggestion that an outside US corporation was
going to dictate procedures and policies on matters affecting local
sovereignty.

It is my hope that an ICANN could be constructed where by consensus among
cctlds. operating in their own ccSO, that "Best Practices" could be
developed for voluntary adoption by cctlds, and which would begin to have
the moral authority of widely adopted consensus practice.

Such a body would also continue the outreach which has been a feature of the
cctld activity, and assist the development of those Practices in new and
emerging countries. Naturally, this needs to be done with huge
sensitivity -countries need to be entirely free to adopt policies that meet
the local conditions.

Considerable work has also been done on how policies made in the DNSO might
be brought to the attention of the ccSO. Provided they were policies made by
consensus in the DNSO, a process for considering their adoption in the ccSO
is set out at http://www.wwtld.org/ongoing/ccso_formation/ccSOinput2.html.

This process is therefore available to bring to the attention of the ccSO
policies that affect users.

But, it is very important to understand the limits -the ccSO is never going
to be able to impose a policy relating to users rights (for example) on any
cctld which chooses not to adopt it. As with other example of international
agreements, primarily treaties, cctlds will be free to opt out of policies
that their local law or custom opposes.

But, just as with the UDRP, a policy made in the g-space might well be seen
as useful by the cctlds individually and adopted locally. Many individual
cctlds have adopted without change the UDRP - many others have used it as a
springboard to develop their own national policies, and I see that kind of
cross over continuing.

The critical role for ICANN is to recognise its role as a coordinator, not a
manger, to allow these developments to occur under the control, and at the
pace of those affected.

So, the process is different  -cctlds have a local internet community, with
varying degrees of consumer input on policy - the g-space doesn't have a
convenient geographic boundary on its community, and ICANN needs to build
one. That is going to be the GNSO, which could be built by reference to
those successful cctld communities, where there is an attempt at balancing
govt, user, provider and other interests. Of course, the issues are
arger  -there are more registries than the single registry of a cctld, more
registrars, and consumers and governments from all over the globe to be
incorporated.... a worth challenge.

Hope thats helpful

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