Re: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@isles.net>]

Read the application form.

It commits you to follow **ICANN** By Laws as well as the membership rules of 
the ccNSO.

This means that in legal terms (I am advised by lawyers) the application form as 
written means you cede authority (of a greater or lesser extent) to ICANN by 
formal agreement with consideration (the fees you pay to ICANN).

The timescale is too fast -- such formal agreements need to have time for them 
to be checked under the law of your own country.



Nigel
joel disini wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>