Re: [Fwd: BMW proposals for further disucssion]

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@linux.lisse.na>]

Amadeu,

I do notice, that you do not speak of DNSO.ORG any more, but of BMW
supporters. I take this then as a stipulation that the BMW Draft does
not have support by the DNSO.ORG. 


> The supporters of the so-called Barcelona/Monterrey/Washington (BMW)
> proposal have been engaged in discussions with the Paris drafters
> and other stakeholders designed to produce a document that has even
> broader support than the document submitted prior to the February
> 5thdeadline.

When is this backroom dealing and wheeling finally going to end and
these things are conducted out in the open? 

Rethorical question of course.


> the Names Council shall, upon request of either (a) a majority of
> members of any such constituency or constituencies, or (b) a
> majority of the Names Council representatives of any such
> constituency or constituencies, allow such members to prepare an
> implementation statement explaining the significance of the proposed
> recommendation. The implementation statement shall be identified as
> such and shall accompany any recommendation by the Names Council
> that is adopted and transmitted to the Corporation in accordance
> with the provisions of this Section A"

That's not very substantive. Actually it means absolutely nothing,
because nobody needs permission from NC to write statements.



> B) Implementation + sovereignity.
> 
> The ccTLDs have often emphasized that implementing ICANN policies could
> sometinmes conflict with the legitimate interests (and laws, or directions
> given by Governments) of sovereign nations that tend to view such ccTLDs as a
> national asset.
>
> Recognizing this concern, we propose the following language that could be a
> substitue for the previous provision, or more likely an addition to it.

Of course we all know that the ccTLDs are split into two main groups,
one operating under government auspices in some form or other (for
example the bigger, European ccTLDs) and the ones that do not want any
government involvement whatosever (mainly the smaller, developing and
some of the commercialized ccTLDs).


> The language reproduced has some support from within the BMW group
> and has been well received by some ccTLD representatives, but has
> not yet been widely disucssed, let alone endorsed by the BMW group.

And of course not even proposed to the DNSO.ORG, but then this doesn't
exist, as we all know and have come to love.


> The provision would read as follows:
> 
> A new paragraph to be added at the end of Article II. Section A (Substantive
> Internet Policies)
> 

> "Further recognizing that some proposals for policy recommendations
> may have a potential for impact on the country code (ISO 3166) Top
> Level Domain registries (the "ccTLD registries") because of the
> relationships that exist between the ccTLD registries and the
> countries to which the country code is delegated, the Names Council
> shall, upon request of at least xx% of the ccTLD registries, refer
> the policy recommendation proposal to the Government Affairs
> Committee of the Corporation [i.e. ICANN] ("GAC") and shall allow
> GAC to prepare an implementation statement regarding the impact of
> the proposed recommendation. The implementation statement shall be
> identified as such and shall accompany any recommendation by the
> Names Council that is adopted and transmitted to the Corporation in
> accordance with the provisions of this Section A."


The GAC is not the right vehicle, in fact totally unaccepteable to
many if not most ccTLD Administrators. It is not part of the DNSO and
can therefor by default not be involved in the first place.

If we are talking souvereignity we can not have one ccTLD vote on what 
another should be allowed to do.


I read this as an obvious attempt to try and obtain support from the
first group of ccTLDs, without giving in an inch (not even a micron).
Though, I suspect that the ccTLD-Administrators can read. Between the
lines.


If  you were actually interested in compromise on this issue, you put
a strong RFC1591 reference in and made sure that the ccTLDs will
remain free of capture.


The membership proposals will be dealt with by people more insterested 
in the topic than I am but I read this as giving the NC even more power.

 
> 3. Geographic diversity.

I see this only as a technical issue, if we agree on geographical
diversity in principle.

> We hope that this changes, that are in fact more "convergence"
> towards the points made by the other application form than absolute
> novelties, will help clarifying the situation or at least focusing
> the discussion.

Actually there isn't much new here.

Who is we, by the way?


el
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse\         /                 Swakopmund State Hospital
<el@lisse.NA>         *        |                  Resident Medical Officer
Private Bag 5004       \      / +264 81 1246733 (c) 64 461005(h) 461004(f)
Swakopmund, Namibia     ;____/       Domain Coordinator for NA-DOM (el108)