Re: [ga] ALAC on ccNSO

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>]

On Sun, 4 May 2003 21:39:25 EDT, you wrote:

>Vittorio,
>
>You wrote:  "The Interim At Large Advisory Committee supports the idea of a 
>Country
>Code Names Supporting Organization as devised in the Report [referring to the 
>Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report of ICANN's Evolution and Reform 
>Committee]".  http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00247.html
>
>May I ask why the ALAC is endorsing the ERC/ccNSO Assistance Group 
>recommendations instead of the "Resolutions adopted by the ccTLD Managers 
>meeting in Rio" posted at 
>http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/Rio/ccNSO_resolution.html ?
>
>How did you arrive at your conclusion?
>
>In your view, why should users support a proposition that calls for three 
>top-down appointed members selected by the Nominating Committee to meddle in 
>the affairs of this SO?
>
>By the way, why did you agree to five top-down appointees being placed on the 
>ALAC?  ...or do you just automatically agree to everything that ICANN imposes?

Quite simply, we are now in the comment period for the first document,
so we are going to comment that one. You may also have noticed that
the differences between the positions of ICANN and of most ccTLD
managers have been substantially bridged in the last months, thanks to
a great amount of good will by everyone involved.

Now, for what regards substance, my ideas about the relationships
between ccTLDs and ICANN are very clear and I have been exposing them
publicly a number of times on this list and elsewhere - perhaps the
most extensive discussion can be found here:
http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/workshop/cctld/cctld049.pdf

In short, I think that ccTLD management is a subject to be dealt with
locally, also given that most ccTLDs have established ways to consult
with and get representation from their local Internet community, and
that the way ICANN set up its relationships with ccTLDs in the past
was fundamentally wrong. (And by the way, do not forget that I do come
from a ccTLD, though I was never involved in representing .it outside
of Italy.)

It is exactly for this reason that I think that the new ccNSO should
be focused on providing a forum for discussion and voluntary consensus
building among ccTLD managers and between them and the other
constituencies, rather than on establishing binding policies. This is
why, personally, I think that having a small number of members on the
ccNSO Council that come from other constituencies and/or from the
general public would help to "fertilize" this discussion. Moreover,
the ccTLD managers resolutions are not against this idea, they simply
ask for more ccTLD seats on the Nominating Committee in exchange for
that - and I imagine that if that is not possible, another compromise
solution on this point might be found.

Finally, I want to note a few things.

First, the post you referred to is not an official ALAC position, but
just my draft for it. I guess that the details of the statement might
change reflecting the comments of other ALAC members and the
suggestions coming from this discussion. That's what public comment
periods are for.

Second, I do not "agree" to "appointees being placed...", in the sense
that it is not my role or the role of the ALAC to approve or reject
this kind of decisions; there is a proper process to take decisions on
these matters, and in fact such decisions regarding the structure of
the ALAC were already taken a long ago. Of course I may and will send
opinions and proposals on the subjects that are being discussed and on
those that I think should be discussed, and you may note that my
original proposals for the ALAC never included top-down appointments
by the NomCom as a preferential option, but it is not in my powers to
take any decisions on these matters.

And finally, just a couple of weeks ago on this list you were
protesting against the fact that the proposed ccNSO would be mostly
limited to ccTLD managers and not sufficiently open for participation
by other constituencies (I am referring to
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc12/msg01089.html). So I don't
understand why now you are so strongly arguing that we should oppose
one of the main elements of "external" participation in the ccNSO.
-- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
--
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