Re: RE: [nc-org] Discussion with McLaughlin

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

"Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Guillermo:
> Thanks for your comments. 
> 
> On the one hand, I agree that every
> constituency should be able to review
> and issue evaluations of applications.
> 
> And of course all aspects of the proposal
> should be open and transparent.
> 
> I am proposing something that I don't
> think conflicts with those goals.
> The proposed "special status" of 
> NCDNHC or some other conrgegation of noncommercial
> interests was ONLY to issue opinions on the
> legitimacy of the Sponsoring Organization
> as a representative/sponsor of noncommercial
> interests. Obviously the NCDNHC would be
> in a better position to do that than the
> other constituencies.

Milton, I totaly disagree that "NCDNHC would
be in a better position". The oustanding majority
(minus very few) of ccTLD registries are not for profit 
organizations, and a multitude of them are still working
in the spirit of research labs or universities,
as the pinoneer of Internet in 1980's and early 1990' were.
These people are doing the Registry job.
When we were querying in Europe, we discovered
that the majority of ccTLD have their local
Internet communities within their countries
as members to the Registry structure, and it
_always_ includes the old pioneers from research
and universities. Additionally, the ccTLD have more
and more legal knowledge about data protection
or intellectual property rights (they are concerned
themselves with their own activity).
All that to say that if there should be any
"better position" it is no doubt the ccTLD are those:
the professionals of registration, applying rules
devised by their local Internet communities,
responding to non commercial interest alike
with many others.

> 
> Keep in mind that I am not proposing
> that this review committee have any 
> special rights with respect to the 
> other aspects of the application, just 
> that it tell the board whether 
> particular SO's pass the bar of 
> credibility or not. 
>  

To be able to pass the bar of credibility one must
be in position to be able to assess every aspect:
as I said, the ccTLD are the only ones with that specta.

> Does that answer your concerns?

Guillermo will answer for himself, but I do share his
concerns from ccTLD perspective, and provided you
my notes. The open, transparent and well balanced process. 

Furthermore as I already said, the distribution of gTLD (which
includes Registries and their Sponsoring Organizations)
is a little like distribution of root servers - 
we MUST and have a duty to consider them from global 
perspective, and this aspect should be mandatory to the
RFP and selection process design.
To be blount, I do not want the repetition of "new gTLD selection",
where everything, RFP and study of answers was done by people
from one country.
I believe it is a  policy matter of dot org TF.

Thank you for a difficult work you are doing, it is not easy.

Best,
Elisabeth
--

> 
> 
> >>> "Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl> 11/26/01 17:48 PM >>>
> Milton,
> 
> I have consulted with my constituency and I think that version 4.1 looks OK.
> Thank you for all the hard work on drafting it.
> 
> Regarding Andrew's proposal, we don't agree. There should be an open and
> transparent process for selecting the new .org registry operator, based upon
> proposals submitted to ICANN and made available to the public (with
> appropriate redactions of confidential information). The NCDNH constituency
> may have the chance to prepare a report advising the ICANN Board on what
> decision to make among the applicants.  So for that matter should any other
> constituency or group, including IPC.  As long as the process is transparent
> there is no need to make any special arrangement for any constituency. 
> 
> Andrew's approach will pobably affect competition in the SO, so we should
> avoid these type of arrangements.
> 
> Guillermo
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
> Enviado el: Sábado, 17 de Noviembre de 2001 23:47
> Para: nc-org@dnso.org
> Asunto: [nc-org] Discussion with McLaughlin
> 
> 
> Because ICANN staff must draft an RFP 
> based on our policy, I sought out Andrew
> McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer,
> during the Annual Meeting to discuss the
> .org situation.
> 
> I received one strong message from him.
> The decision criteria for the Board need
> to be as specific as possible. ICANN
> feels a little burned about the criticism
> it received in selecting the new TLD
> applicants in the last round, and would
> like to avoid any appearance of 
> arbitrariness.
> 
> Another interesting fact: ICANN
> staff does not mind, Andrew said, allowing
> the DNSO Task Force to review its RFP
> before it is publicly disseminated. As 
> long as there is a clear limit on the
> number of review cycles (both of us agreeing
> that the optimal number is one, given the
> time constraints) he has no objection to
> running it by the TF. This is interesting
> because some one on the Names Council 
> objecting to the paragraph in our current
> policy calling for TF review of the RFP.
> I would imagine those objections would be
> dropped once this is made clear.
> 
> Finally, Andrew proposed a very 
> interesting concept that we may want to 
> incorporate into the final policy document.
> In keeping with his desire to avoid 
> subjecting the Board to vague and difficult
> decisions, he suggested that DNSO 
> constituencies or external non-profit groups
> might play a role in reviewing ORG applicants.
> For example, the NCDNHC, or an international
> committee of noncommercial organizations 
> galvanized by the NCDNHC, might review the
> proposals for non-profit Sponsoring 
> Organizations and write a report on them
> to the Board. 
> 
> This could be particularly useful because 
> many commercial registries or other businesses
> that would like to "get .org are likely
> to form their own nonprofit SOs. The ICANN
> Board, confronted with 5 or 10 of such 
> entities, might ot be in a good position 
> to judge which is real and has significant
> support from the noncommercial Internet
> community. Review by a broad committee of
> noncommercial stakeholders might provide
> the information they need, at little cost
> to ICANN.
> 
> Please let me know what you think of this
> concept.
> 
>