Re: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.
The issue is not 'can we get enough ccTLDs signed up to scrape above the hurdle to hold an early election'. It is 'Can we be inclusive and get the maximum number of ccTLDs to buy in to the cc(N)SO process'. And rushing the election before Carthage will /not/ help. Our ccTLD is small, and can make quick decisions in consultation with our LIC which is also small. However others, such as .UK perhaps, are dependent on proposals being notified to all Board Members sufficiently before a Board meeting at which decisions are to be taken. This is natural justice at work. And as I am sure you well know, it's quite common in incorporated organisations that the M&A or Rules of Procedure mandate say, 21 days notice of a proposed Resolution. And the fact that European ccTLDS went to the trouble of electing a European LG member (Olivier) who now admits that he has been kept in the dart annd taken absolutely no part in writing the proposals which appear on the website is to my, mind, shocking. My information is that these proposals (which may or may not be good ones -- I make no judgement on that) were written with significant intervetion of a senior ICANN staffer, not 'bottom up' from within the ccTLD community. (The dearth of open discussion on the contents via the ccTLD list before the 'deus ex machina' only confirms this). It's NOT a good start. Chris Disspain wrote: > Paul, > > Some of my colleagues on the LG have now responded to your email below. > At the risk of repeating things, I don't think you have "understood this > correctly". > > The Launching Group is tasked with 2 things and only 2 things. They are > 1) to publish an application form and accept applications from ccTLD > managers and 2) to organise the first election of the ccNSO council. > > The running of the election is dependant upon there being a minimum of > 30 members and there being at least 4 members in each geographic region. > We thought it was appropriate to provide the community with a timetable > of what would need to happen if we were to run the election before the > ICANN meeting in Tunisia. Obviously such an election would only occur > before Tunisia if we had sufficient members by a date that would give us > enough time to run the election. That date is September 4th and, if we > do not have sufficient members then, obviously, we will not run the > election prior to Tunisia. > > I hope that clarifies the position for you. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > You said that someone else said:- "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... > > Please tell whoever said this that it is rubbish. > > You said:- 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. > > I am the first to admit that a timetable to have the council elected for > the Carthage meeting is 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. > > Regards, > > Chris Disspain > CEO - auDA > email@example.com > www.auda.org.au > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul M Kane [mailto:Paul.Kane@nic.AC] > Sent: Thursday, 28 August 2003 20:12 > To: Chris Disspain > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com > 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. 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. > > 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. > > 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 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. > > I want to be supporting this process but boy..... there is so much wrong > > with it..... 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... > > 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. > > 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. > > Best > > Paul > > > Chris Disspain wrote: > > >>The Launching Group has now published a call for membership > > applications. > >>For more information and to apply please see http://ccnso.icann.org/ >>or follow the link from ICANN's home page >> >>Regards, >> >>Chris Disspain >> > > > _______________________________________________ > cctld-discuss mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://www.wwtld.org/mailman/listinfo/cctld-discuss >