Re: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.

["joel disini" <jed@email.com.ph>]

Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane@nic.ac> writes:
>remember ccNSO membership also causes ccTLDs signing up commit to 
>following ICANN's own Bylaws.

"Alf Hansen" <alf.hansen@uninett.no> writes:
>.."(b) adhere to ICANN bylaws as they apply to ccTLDs (Article IX and
>Annexes B
>and C of the ICANN bylaws found at
>http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm);"

"Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> writes:
>Any changes in the ICANN
>by laws that seek to bind ccTLDs can only bind those who have contracts
>or members of the ccNSO AFTER such a change had been subjected to the
>ccNSO Policy Development Process. And even then, ccTLD managers can
>leave if they wish. 


Can someone kindly explain who is correct? My understanding is that if a
ccTLD joins the ccNSO, that ccTLD is not necessarily subject to follow
ICANN directives (also knows as "consensus-based policies"). And, as Chris
says, any ICANN policy will have to be approved by the ccNSO before it can
be "binding" on the ccTLD.  Lastly, to quote an APTLD colleague,  is
expected that peer pressure among ccTLDs is what will make the "rogue"
ccTLD conform to ccNSO approved policies, as the "rogue" ccTLD will always
have the option of leaving the ccNSO.  

If this is the case - how does one explain Alf's quote wherein ICANN
bylaws will apply to ccNSO-member ccTLDs? How can a ccNSO-member ccTLD not
be subject to ICANN directives (sorry - "consensus-based policies") YET be
subject to ICANN bylaws?  What  exactly does this mean anyway? 

And is the ccNSO like Congress and ICANN like the President? Eg -  ccNSO
submits bills to ICANN to ratify, but ICANN can always exercise its
Presidential veto?

We haven't signed up yet to join the ccNSO, and I presume there are many
others out there who need this matter clarified before deciding to join or
not join the ccNSO.

Thanks in advance,
Joel