RE: DNSGA Re: [wg-review] [Review] ccTLD vs DNSO vs ICANN vs GAC

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

A clarification-

Even though the ccTLD already has its own organization, our objective is to
work within and reform the ICANN process.

That is why we (some of us, anyway, both directly and within our
organization) are participating in the WG-Review process.

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Joanna Lane
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:55 AM
To: Derek Conant
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: DNSGA Re: [wg-review] [Review] ccTLD vs DNSO vs ICANN vs
GAC


Derek Conant wrote:-
Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

Maybe the international Internet community, and more specifically ccTLD
representatives, need to participate in a new organization wholly separate
from
ICANN?>

Hi Derek,
From what I can gather, you established DNSGA less than six months ago.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Since then, you say you have received "overwhelming support from
representatives of country-code top-level domain registries (ccTLDs) and
from the international Internet community." If so, clearly DNSO is not
delivering all that the ccTLDs want and I wonder what role the DNSGA is
fulfilling exactly that cannot be matched by ICANN.

Here are my questions:-

In relation to constituencies:-
1.) What would be the advantages for ccTLDs to leave DNSO and join an
organization independently of ICANN ?
2.) What kind of relations do you anticipate between DNSGA and ICANN?

In relation to procedure:-
3.) Do you anticipate difficulties with the multi-lingual aspects of a
growing international organization?
4.) How does the process by which you function and create policies etc.
differ from the DNSO/ ICANN?

Thank you,
Joanna Lane


Eric Dierker wrote:

> I bow to your wisdom and Greg's analysis of how we can accomplish the most
good.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Eric wrote:-
> > Don't you think that perhaps our input may help them in the task.  The
> > extraordinary support from this group regarding addressing the issues of
> > multi-lingualism should at least let them know they have a wide base of
> > support
> > to come up with solutions.  Also it will give people a heads up as to
what
> > likely antagonists positioning will be, something I would be most
grateful
> > for.
> >
> > On the other hand I would like to know where in Mr. Burton's categories
this
> > thread belongs.
> >
> > [Joanna]  I just think we could save time if we knew what the ccTLD's
want
> > first, and in particular, from this WG.
> > Hello ccTLDs, do you have any position papers to clarify the issues for
us?
> >
> > > YJ Park wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello members,
> > > >
> > > > As you read, Bill asked not to cross post wg-review message to
> > > > cctld-discuss list. Please keep this in mind.
> > > >
> > > > We have focused "Language Divide" and "Translation Cost" in
> > > > ICANN process. As you may know, ccTLD is going to have a
> > > > meeting in Hawaii to figure out what their future should be.
> > > >
> > > > Since ccTLD constituency is in the DNSO structure at this juncture,
> > > > it might be more productive to discuss bigger picture for
WG-Review's
> > > > recommendation to the Names Council.
> > > >
> > > > 1. [DNSO Structure Discussion] ccTLD should be in the DNSO?
> > > > 2. If not, what could be the potential model
> > > > 3. [NET Sovereignty] If so, what kind of relations should there
> > > >     be between ccTLD and ICANN
> > > > 4. What kind of relations among ccTLD vs ICANN vs GAC
> > > >
> > >
> > > > :So with this in mind just what sort of relations exist at this
time?
> > >
> > > I am not comfortable with discussing what would be the appropriate
model
> > for
> > > ccTLDs, when they, themselves, have not yet determined what their
future
> > > should be. I would have thought we should wait for a proposal to come
from
> > > Hawaii, then discuss the merits.
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html