Re: [Fwd: BMW proposals for further disucssion]

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eberhard and all,

  As usual for the former supporters of the gTLD-MoU, Amadeu is
playing the sleezy backroom games as is their habit.

Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:

> 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)

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208