wwTLD/ccTLD list archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.

  • To: "'Paul M Kane'" <Paul.Kane@nic.AC>, "'Chris Disspain'" <ceo@auda.org.au>
  • Subject: RE: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.
  • From: "Alf Hansen" <alf.hansen@uninett.no>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:50:12 +0200
  • Cc: member@aptld.org, cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
  • Delivered-To: cctld-discuss@centr-svr.org
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-Reply-To: <3F4DD563.9040504@nic.AC>
  • List-Archive: <http://www.wwtld.org/ml/private/cctld-discuss>
  • List-Help: <mailto:cctld-discuss-request@wwtld.org?subject=help>
  • List-Id: ccTLD Managers - General Discussion <cctld-discuss.wwtld.org>
  • List-Post: <mailto:cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
  • List-Subscribe: <http://www.wwtld.org/ml/listinfo/cctld-discuss>,<mailto:cctld-discuss-request@wwtld.org?subject=subscribe>
  • List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.wwtld.org/ml/listinfo/cctld-discuss>,<mailto:cctld-discuss-request@wwtld.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Sender: cctld-discuss-bounces+elisabeth.porteneuve=cetp.ipsl.fr@wwtld.org

Dear Paul,

Some personal comments to you message.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cctld-discuss-admin@wwtld.org 
> [mailto:cctld-discuss-admin@wwtld.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane
> Sent: 28. august 2003 12:12
> To: Chris Disspain
> Cc: cctld-discuss@wwtld.org; member@aptld.org
> Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.
> Hi Chris
> Thanks for posting this BUT ... (I really apologies for being the BUT 
> man ... have I understood this correctly.....
> ICANN are suggesting that in less than 1 week they expect 
> serious ccTLDs 
> to commit to something where the costs are not known and they need to 
> have their Registry Board Approval for joining. 

"The Launching Group is working on nominating an organization to run the
Council election, and the process for these elections. If it is
possible, the Launching Group would like to hold ccNSO Council elections
in time for the first ccNSO meeting to be held at ICANN in Tunisia. If
this is to occur then the threshold of 30 members would need to be
reached by 4 September 2003 to allow for the following timetable:..."

The ccNSO LG has no right to propose a membership fee. "The level of the
fees and type of secretariat will be agreed by the members of the

> Further if 
> the purpose 
> of the ccNSO is to "Nurture consensus across the ccNSO's community, 
> including the name-related activities of ccTLDs" - an 
> inclusive dialogue 
> should be started amongst ALL ccTLD managers, making them 
> feel part of a 
> "good things" rather than "rail-roaded" into the unknown.

I agree. Why do we not all start an open and constructing discussion on
how we could use the future ccNSO to develop best practices etc. for the
best of our Local (and global) Internet Communities? It is up to us to
be willing to contribute in an open process. The members will form the

> It will be difficult for many ccTLDs to organise a Board meeting to 
> consider membership of the ccNSO (it is ridiculously short); 
> the outcome 
> of the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the 3rd September on 
> "obliging" ICANN make ccTLD follow gTLD Policy (see attached 
> letter) and 
> URL on the Justice Committee hearing - will not be known .... and 
> remember ccNSO membership also causes ccTLDs signing up commit to 
> following ICANN's own Bylaws.

.."(b) adhere to ICANN bylaws as they apply to ccTLDs (Article IX and
Annexes B
and C of the ICANN bylaws found at

> Is this not a simple ruse for those "insiders" who have been close to 
> the development of the ccNSO to sign up for membership, then (almost) 
> self select themselves to the Council, and then have the 
> "hand picked" 
> Council members self select 2 representatives the Board???

I do not think this is fair to say.

> I urge the Launching Group - to start acting responsibly and start 
> dialogue so ccTLDs can feel part of the ccNSO community - not rush 
> something through by publishing an unrealistic time table 
> which assists 
> in "insider" self selection.

Now I think I understand what you are afraid of. The ccNSO structure,
bylaw etc. is ok, but the rush opens up for "manipulation". Is this a
correct interpretetion? If so, let us call a spade a spade (as we say in
Norwegian). You are saying that the mechanism of 9 selected and 6
elected LG members combined with the rush, is deliberately used by
someone to achieve something in an undemocratic way.

You may be right, but personally I would like to believe this is not
true. I consider this to be a way to move things forward with a
reasonable speed. But we have to be aware of the danger...

> I want to be supporting this process but boy..... there is so 
> much wrong 
> with it..... 

Nothing is perfect and we should all continue to try to improve the

> as a wise person wrote to me privately:
> The ICANN is:
> "now complemented with a nice, brand new carriage solely for 
> ccTLDs whose
> (prospective) passengers don't care about the train's 
> direction but like how fast it's going and concentrate on who 
> will occupy the first class compartments and who will be 
> appointed conductor...

I hope the majority of passengers will be of a different type. But
nothing can be guaranteed. If the serious passengers will not enter the
train, ICANN will probably fail. 

> Before boarding the train we need to find out which direction 
> the train 
> is moving, the cost .... and if there is sufficient railway track to 
> make it to the desired destination.

I see this as a train standing on the station. There is a conductor
fighting for the train to go in a certain direction, but in the end the
passengers has to build the railroad first in the direction they
want.... And they decide also on the ticket cost.

They may decide not to enter the train, and stand still on the station,
waiting for the bus ("The ITU Greyhound").

> IMHO it would be better to have the membership period open until 
> Carthage and let (prospective) Council members present themselves in 
> person, so proper evaluation of the skills of the candidate can be 
> undertaken. This has two advantages i) more ccTLDs will be 
> involved in 
> the ccNSO process, ii) the best candidates will be (s)elected to the 
> Council, thereby significanlty enhancing the legitimacy of the ccNSO.

A fair process is of outmost importance. We should go for a fair process
in a timely speed.. But I feel it hard beacause no ccTLD manager is
saying: "I want to join if the council election process is fair". If
there was such an indication I am certain that the LG will listen. The
LG has listened before.

Best regards,
Alf H

> Best
> Paul

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>