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

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu.org>
To: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD
Registry Constituency


On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:57:40 +1200, you wrote:


>It is also true that there are areas where coordinated action between ICANN
and the ccTLDs could benefit both of them.

Interesting semantics -ICANNis supposed to be the coordinator of the
players, including the ccTLds and, say the Address registries. Interesting
that it has a role of its own, and we are expected to coordinate with it....


>For example, since there is to be
some form of At Large membership, perhaps the ccTLDs who already have it or
want to have it could share the burden of registering individuals, so users
would sign up once for ICANN and for their ccTLDs, and the general workload
to maintain this membership would be smaller. This is definitely something
that the users and the ccSO should discuss in the near future.

I have facilitated the presence of At Large speakers at several of the past
ICANN meetings, but have to say that the cctlds are little interested in
this sort of additional work load.

>Again, I agree with your view, and I agree that ccTLDs should not be forced
to adopt policies that they don't like (instead, they should be encouraged
to do so by the fact that those policies are good, and that most other
ccTLDs are adopting them). Anyway, since there are policies that would
benefit from central coordination - just to name one, WHOIS uniformity
across the ccTLDs

Excuse me, but a policy cannot benefit from coordination  -some of the
participants might.In this case, there are huge local law issues that make
it certain that a uniform approach to whois is most unlikely -for the
forseeable. See the recent lawsuit threated against Nominet in the UK as a
recent example of the local policy/ local law in operation. The fact that
there is an enormously passionate dabate in (just) the g space on whois
issues( trade mark owners/biz vs individual privacy/ safety, for eg) might
indicate that when you take this issue and muliply it by 190 culural and
legal flavours you are going to get a complex cocktail, not a milkshake...


- there must be a way for the ccSO to develop such
policies at a central level, with the input of the users too. This is why we
(as the ALAC Advisory Group) suggested that there should be an At Large
liaison to the ccSO Council. I would strongly suggest, for example, that
when the ccSO sets up working groups it should include a representative of
the ALAC in them. Would you consider this?

Yes. We have had a DNSO liaison Group for some time, are working with the
GAC on regional liaision and expect to establish other formal liaison
systems with others.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association
ccAdcom Meeting Chair

--
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