wwTLD/ccTLD list archives


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

Re: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.

  • To: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>
  • Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.
  • From: Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane@nic.AC>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:50:41 +0100
  • Cc: ccnso-l-g@icann.org, cctld-discuss@wwtld.org, CENTR GA <ga@centr.org>, member@aptld.org, "'Paul M Kane'" <Paul.Kane@nic.AC>
  • Delivered-To: cctld-discuss@centr-svr.org
  • In-Reply-To: <011c01c36df7$7a08e9a0$ee02a8c0@DISSPAIN>
  • 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>
  • References: <011c01c36df7$7a08e9a0$ee02a8c0@DISSPAIN>
  • Sender: cctld-discuss-bounces+elisabeth.porteneuve=cetp.ipsl.fr@wwtld.org
  • User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

Chris Disspain wrote:

>Turning now to some of the other points you have raised:-
>	You said:- It will be difficult for many ccTLDs to organise a
>Board meeting to consider membership of the ccNSO
>That may well be so and if it is then we will not have enough members to
>proceed with the election. 
Chris - I am sure the intelligent members of the LG would not undertake 
such an rapid timetable to facilitate their "election" to the Council if 
they were not confident of having the necessary number of ccTLDs to move 
forward at such a pace.

>	You said:- 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.
>It may be that some ccTLDs may wish to wait for the outcome of this
>matter. Equally, there may well be others who believe that having a
>formed and operating ccNSO will actually be beneficial in dealing with
>any outcomes that arise. Let us not forget that ultimately local laws
>are paramount, something the by laws recognise. 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. 
Chris - Please do not put your head in the sand.  This is not about 
ccTLDs this is about political survival and who can be "sold-out" to 
prolong life.... and IMHO the ccTLDs are potentially the target for 
slaughter.  Look at the recent dialogue between the ICANN/GAC/ITU.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Forum "DNS Advisory Group Forum"
Date: 	Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:24:28 +0200 (MEST)
From: 	ITU Forum Administrator <webmaster@itu.int>
To: 	Paul KANE <Paul.kane@nic.ac>


Subject: News
Houlin has asked me to report to the Advisory Group that he has recently had extensive discussions with Mr. Paul Twomey, President of ICANN, and Mr. Sharil Tamrizi, Chair of ICANN's GAC.

There was an exchange of views and discussion of the issues of cooperation. It was agreed to seek improvements in cooperation. For example, the forthcoming Workshop on developing a recommendation to clarify the management of ".int" will become a joint Workshop and a follow-up workshop next year to this year's Workshop on Member States' experiences with ccTLDs could be organized jointly.

We would welcome comments on this and suggestions for other possible ways to improve cooperation.

END of message.

>Ultimately, threats from US Senators, ITU, WSIS proceedings and the like
>are all the more powerful because there is no 'voice' for the ccTLDs.
>The longer we fiddle around the edges waiting for everything to be
>perfect, the more likely it becomes that the ccTLDs will lose control of
>their own destiny. 

That is my point ..... I do not want ccTLDs to loose control of their 
own destiny..... and the ccNSO unless handled considerably more 
sensitively than it has in teh past will be the vehicle for eroding the 
independence of ccTLD registries - which are desigend specifically to 
ensure the Local Internet Community is served.  Chris you and I know the 
ccTLDs are just pawns in a much more sophisticated game....

I want ICANN to succeed - we (ALL of us) are ICANN - it should not be 
them and us.  Remember many of us have been fighting for "NewCo" since 
1995, were invoilved in teh process to

I probably spend 3/4 days per month trying to support ICANN in the 
public political arena- Next week I (at my own personal expense, will be 
travelling from my office here in Spain to London for a meeting of the 
Top 100 European Companies who want to discuss WSIS (ITU v ICANN)
The following week I will be travelling to Moscow at the request of 
CENTR members to defend/promote private sector leadership. 
This is a real international politics at the highest of levels and much 
more than ccTLD registry management or ICANN's process. We are used to 
having freedoms and liberal regimes, but in many many contries this is 
not the case. People's freedoms to use and develop the internet is 
really at stake, we have a duty to promote their interests too.

>	You said:- 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???
>No, it is not.
Time will tell, but I remain to be convinced.  Ensuring that the ccNSO 
is considerbaly more inclusive and the process of getting more ccTLDs 
involved from the START is one way to prove that!!

>I am the first to admit that a timetable to have the council elected for
>the Carthage meeting is ambitious.
Thanks - I agree - far too ambitious.

> And, as I have said, it won't happen
>if we don't get the required minimum number of members. All we are
>trying to do is to inform ccTLDs that IF we are to have a council
>elected by Carthage then here are the dates by which things need to get
>done. We are NOT saying that will happen. What actually does happen is
>not in the control of the LG but firmly in the control of the ccTLDs. 
I sincerely hope the process is not rushed and does not follow the 
timetable on the ICANN site.

Let us have a period of open dialogue and consultation, get members 
behind and supporting the ccNSO up to Carthage, then let those 
interested in the Council present themselves and their credentials at 
the Carthage meeting, for an electin soon thereafter.  There are no 
pressing issues, that is worth sacraficing having a proper process.  Let 
us demonstrate the Private Sector do know how to behave properly and 
manage the internet resporces in a responsible (and inclusive) manner. 
Think about the timing .......  and WSIS ... if the ccNSO LG screw this 
us it is amunition to those who want to kill ICANN - WSIS PrepCom is in 
September, and the Summit itself is December ......

PLEASE _do_not_ rush this process ... let's take time and get it 
RIGHT......  We have waited 3 years for the ccNSO to be the "home" for 
ccTLDs - let's move so fast that it causes  friction that could cause it 
to catch fire




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