Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #514
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 5 2001            Volume 01 : Number 514

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:35:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Hello Jim,

Monday, June 04, 2001, 10:02:44 PM, Jim Ayson wrote:

>>Most ccTLDs (OECD ones anyway) are supported by their Government and
>>local communities and if domain names in that country stopped

> Many, but not all. There are many ccTLDs that are operating independently 
> of government support.

I'd even venture to say the number that are operating with any kind of
official government sanction are in the vast minority.

.dk and .au are the most prominent.  .us appears to be going that
route with NTIA soliciting for a new manager for the TLD.

There are some with some quasigovernment involvement (such as .cl
which is run by the University of Chile, which is a state school, but
in this case is more closely resembling a private non-profit rather
than a government oversight of the TLD).

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:17:46 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

I think a proposal to the board for creation of a new SO would be
one reasonable path.

Vint

At 10:23 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
>Vint,
>
>Perhaps I should be more clear.  I agree that the Bylaws allow for the
>creation of additional SO's.  By the wording of the Bylaws, there appears to
>be only one *process* defined that would initiate the consideration of
>another SO, namely a Staff Recommendation.  The Bylaws state:
>
>"(b) The Board may amend the Bylaws to create additional Supporting
>Organizations if it determines, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of
>the Board, that it would serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event
>of a staff recommendation that an additional Supporting Organization should
>be created, the Board will post the staff recommendation on the Web Site,
>including a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
>desirable, set a reasonable time for the receipt of public comments, and not
>make a final decision to seek the consensus development of such additional
>Supporting Organization until it has taken into account all such comments."
>
>All other considerations rely upon a vote of the board.  However, there is
>no clear process as to how that consideration by the Board may be reached.
>Is there a method by which the Board would be enacted to review such a
>consideration?  Petition?  Formal letter? etc.?
>
>Gene...
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vint cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:46 AM
>> To: Gene Marsh; Derek Conant; [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>>
>>
>> There is a process for SO creation and it is found in the ByLaws
>> (section 3 in Article VI Supporting Organizations).
>>
>> there should be a copy of the bylaws on the www.icann.org
>> website. New constituencies in the DNSO can be initiated by  by
>> petition or by board-initiated action (see Article VI-B, section 3(d)).
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  At 09:09 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
>> >Vint,
>> >
>> >Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the
>> creation/acceptance
>> >of an SO?  I was of the impression that there was no such
>> defined process,
>> >even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.
>> >
>> >If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
>> >formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.
>> >
>> >Could you please clarify?
>> >
>> >Gene...
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
>> vint cerf
>> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
>> >> To: Derek Conant; [email-masked]
>> >> Cc: [email-masked]
>> >> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Derek,
>> >>
>> >> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
>> >>
>> >> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
>> >> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
>> >> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
>> >> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
>> >> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
>> >> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
>> >> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
>> >>
>> >> Vint Cerf
>> >>
>> >> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
>> >> >The ICANN Board should take into consideration the
>> demonstrated lack of
>> >> >progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
>> >> >take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
>> >> >concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.
>> >> >
>> >> >It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status
>> within ICANN
>> >> >is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
>> >> >However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
>> >> >demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
>> >> >consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
>> >> >this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
>> >> >compromised or cheapened.
>> >> >
>> >> >The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
>> >> >upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
>> >> >holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
>> >> >faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.
>> >> >
>> >> >Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
>> >> >my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members
>> voted (if I
>> >> >am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
>> >> >only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
>> >> >proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not
>> understand the
>> >> >process or representations.
>> >> >
>> >> >It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
>> >> >proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
>> >> >ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
>> >> >does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
>> >> >necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
>> >> >international community.
>> >> >
>> >> >This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
>> >> >GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
>> >> >proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
>> >> >community.  The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase
>> with the ICANN
>> >> >Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show
>> demonstrated
>> >> >diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
>> >> >that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status.  This
>> >> >should then cause the international community to pull together in an
>> >> >effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies
>> necessary
>> >> >for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
>> >> >accelerate ICANN's international objectives.
>> >> >
>> >> >My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
>> >> >group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
>> >> >applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
>> >> >applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
>> >> >status without these requirements could destabilize the
>> integrity of the
>> >> >DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose
>> momentum or
>> >> >give up when they fail to work within the DNSO.  The other
>> >> >constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to
>> want SO status
>> >> >if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.
>> >> >
>> >> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
>> >> >representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
>> >> >constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
>> >> >within ICANN.  I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
>> >> >narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
>> >> >outside of the DNSO.  I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
>> >> >interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
>> >> >the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
>> >> >constituencies with valid consensus results.  I explained that this is
>> >> >what is probably needed first.
>> >> >
>> >> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
>> >> >organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
>> >> >parties.  A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
>> >> >International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever)
>> with a broad
>> >> >scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
>> >> >constituencies that produce valid consensus.  In my opinion, this is
>> >> >what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting
>> for.  And, to
>> >> >protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything
>> less from an
>> >> >applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
>> >> >represent the international community.
>> >> >
>> >> >If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
>> >> >representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
>> >> >Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
>> >> >they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
>> >> >ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
>> >> >seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
>> >> >difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
>> >> >difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
>> >> >the ccTLD constituency.
>> >> >
>> >> >The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
>> >> >comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
>> >> >requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO
>> status. With all
>> >> >of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and
>> underdeveloped
>> >> >organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
>> >> >ICANN itself to become unstable.
>> >> >
>> >> >Derek Conant
>> >> >DNSGA President and Chairman
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> >>
>>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:46:22 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

There is a process for SO creation and it is found in the ByLaws (section 3 in Article VI Supporting Organizations).

there should be a copy of the bylaws on the www.icann.org website. New constituencies in the DNSO can be initiated by  by petition or by board-initiated action (see Article VI-B, section 3(d)).

vint

 At 09:09 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
>Vint,
>
>Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the creation/acceptance
>of an SO?  I was of the impression that there was no such defined process,
>even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.
>
>If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
>formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.
>
>Could you please clarify?
>
>Gene...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of vint cerf
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
>> To: Derek Conant; [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>>
>>
>> Derek,
>>
>> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
>>
>> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
>> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
>> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
>> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
>> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
>> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
>> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>>
>> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
>> >The ICANN Board should take into consideration the demonstrated lack of
>> >progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
>> >take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
>> >concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.
>> >
>> >It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status within ICANN
>> >is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
>> >However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
>> >demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
>> >consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
>> >this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
>> >compromised or cheapened.
>> >
>> >The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
>> >upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
>> >holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
>> >faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.
>> >
>> >Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
>> >my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members voted (if I
>> >am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
>> >only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
>> >proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not understand the
>> >process or representations.
>> >
>> >It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
>> >proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
>> >ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
>> >does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
>> >necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
>> >international community.
>> >
>> >This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
>> >GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
>> >proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
>> >community.  The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase with the ICANN
>> >Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show demonstrated
>> >diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
>> >that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status.  This
>> >should then cause the international community to pull together in an
>> >effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies necessary
>> >for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
>> >accelerate ICANN's international objectives.
>> >
>> >My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
>> >group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
>> >applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
>> >applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
>> >status without these requirements could destabilize the integrity of the
>> >DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose momentum or
>> >give up when they fail to work within the DNSO.  The other
>> >constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to want SO status
>> >if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.
>> >
>> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
>> >representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
>> >constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
>> >within ICANN.  I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
>> >narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
>> >outside of the DNSO.  I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
>> >interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
>> >the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
>> >constituencies with valid consensus results.  I explained that this is
>> >what is probably needed first.
>> >
>> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
>> >organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
>> >parties.  A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
>> >International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever) with a broad
>> >scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
>> >constituencies that produce valid consensus.  In my opinion, this is
>> >what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting for.  And, to
>> >protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything less from an
>> >applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
>> >represent the international community.
>> >
>> >If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
>> >representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
>> >Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
>> >they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
>> >ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
>> >seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
>> >difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
>> >difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
>> >the ccTLD constituency.
>> >
>> >The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
>> >comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
>> >requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO status. With all
>> >of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and underdeveloped
>> >organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
>> >ICANN itself to become unstable.
>> >
>> >Derek Conant
>> >DNSGA President and Chairman
>>
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:13:59 +0200
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter 

re: 31 ccTLDs in stockholom

First of all, I believe the count is 40 plus. Second, we (ccTLD) have been
discussing a new form of relationship with ICANN for over a year now.

When combining the unanimous vote in Stockholm, with the votes of other
ccTLDs who were present in Melbourne and Los Angeles, we are at a
significant majority of all currently participating ccTLDs. By currently
partici[ating, i mean that in 2 years, we have reached somewhat over 100
cctLDs, eith on a list, face to face meeting, or by having them participate
in an election.

That said, of course we will put the resolution to the ccTLD list for
endorsement.

Peter de Blanc
chair, ccTLD AdCom

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of DPF
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700, Derek wrote:

>It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status within ICANN
>is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
>However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
>demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
>consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
>this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
>compromised or cheapened.

The ASO and PSO do not have constituencies so why should the ccSO?

Nevertheless this is an interesting point.  Should the ccTLD
registries be the *only* component of a ccTLD SO?

This is worth considering before we get too far down the track.

>Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
>my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members voted (if I
>am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
>only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
>proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not understand the
>process or representations.

I think you will find those 31 ccTLDs though comprise over 95% of
ccTLD domain names and probably 99% of ICANN funding through ccTLDs.

>It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
>proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
>ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
>does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
>necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
>international community.

On the contrary they have regional grouping, an international
executive cmte and a secretariat.  They seem better organised than
even the DNSO arguably.

>If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
>representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
>Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
>they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
>ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
>seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
>difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
>difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
>the ccTLD constituency.

I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
take their ball and play elsewhere.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:57:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Vint and all assembly members,

vint cerf wrote:

> I think a proposal to the board for creation of a new SO would be
> one reasonable path.

  Well of course it would be as long as that $1.4M is on the line Eh, Vint!?
And of course in creating a ccSO, keeps at least 31 ccTLD's actively
interested in ICANN as well....  Question is though, what would this
but in terms of seats on the ICANN BoD?  If it isn't at least 1/3 of
the ICANN BoD seats I doubt that many of the ccTLD's will continue
their interest in ICANN, or shouldn't anyway.  And if I were the ccTLD's
that have ask for this, I would also want to have the ability to earmark those
$1.4m funds for issues that are of ccTLD interests only....

>
>
> Vint
>
> At 10:23 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
> >Vint,
> >
> >Perhaps I should be more clear.  I agree that the Bylaws allow for the
> >creation of additional SO's.  By the wording of the Bylaws, there appears to
> >be only one *process* defined that would initiate the consideration of
> >another SO, namely a Staff Recommendation.  The Bylaws state:
> >
> >"(b) The Board may amend the Bylaws to create additional Supporting
> >Organizations if it determines, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of
> >the Board, that it would serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event
> >of a staff recommendation that an additional Supporting Organization should
> >be created, the Board will post the staff recommendation on the Web Site,
> >including a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
> >desirable, set a reasonable time for the receipt of public comments, and not
> >make a final decision to seek the consensus development of such additional
> >Supporting Organization until it has taken into account all such comments."
> >
> >All other considerations rely upon a vote of the board.  However, there is
> >no clear process as to how that consideration by the Board may be reached.
> >Is there a method by which the Board would be enacted to review such a
> >consideration?  Petition?  Formal letter? etc.?
> >
> >Gene...
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: vint cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:46 AM
> >> To: Gene Marsh; Derek Conant; [email-masked]
> >> Cc: [email-masked]
> >> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
> >>
> >>
> >> There is a process for SO creation and it is found in the ByLaws
> >> (section 3 in Article VI Supporting Organizations).
> >>
> >> there should be a copy of the bylaws on the www.icann.org
> >> website. New constituencies in the DNSO can be initiated by  by
> >> petition or by board-initiated action (see Article VI-B, section 3(d)).
> >>
> >> vint
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  At 09:09 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
> >> >Vint,
> >> >
> >> >Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the
> >> creation/acceptance
> >> >of an SO?  I was of the impression that there was no such
> >> defined process,
> >> >even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.
> >> >
> >> >If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
> >> >formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.
> >> >
> >> >Could you please clarify?
> >> >
> >> >Gene...
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> >> vint cerf
> >> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
> >> >> To: Derek Conant; [email-masked]
> >> >> Cc: [email-masked]
> >> >> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Derek,
> >> >>
> >> >> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
> >> >> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
> >> >> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
> >> >> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
> >> >> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
> >> >> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
> >> >> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Vint Cerf
> >> >>
> >> >> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
> >> >> >The ICANN Board should take into consideration the
> >> demonstrated lack of
> >> >> >progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
> >> >> >take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
> >> >> >concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status
> >> within ICANN
> >> >> >is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
> >> >> >However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
> >> >> >demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
> >> >> >consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
> >> >> >this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
> >> >> >compromised or cheapened.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
> >> >> >upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
> >> >> >holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
> >> >> >faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
> >> >> >my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members
> >> voted (if I
> >> >> >am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
> >> >> >only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
> >> >> >proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not
> >> understand the
> >> >> >process or representations.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
> >> >> >proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
> >> >> >ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
> >> >> >does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
> >> >> >necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
> >> >> >international community.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
> >> >> >GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
> >> >> >proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
> >> >> >community.  The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase
> >> with the ICANN
> >> >> >Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show
> >> demonstrated
> >> >> >diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
> >> >> >that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status.  This
> >> >> >should then cause the international community to pull together in an
> >> >> >effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies
> >> necessary
> >> >> >for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
> >> >> >accelerate ICANN's international objectives.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
> >> >> >group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
> >> >> >applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
> >> >> >applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
> >> >> >status without these requirements could destabilize the
> >> integrity of the
> >> >> >DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose
> >> momentum or
> >> >> >give up when they fail to work within the DNSO.  The other
> >> >> >constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to
> >> want SO status
> >> >> >if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
> >> >> >representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
> >> >> >constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
> >> >> >within ICANN.  I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
> >> >> >narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
> >> >> >outside of the DNSO.  I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
> >> >> >interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
> >> >> >the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
> >> >> >constituencies with valid consensus results.  I explained that this is
> >> >> >what is probably needed first.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
> >> >> >organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
> >> >> >parties.  A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
> >> >> >International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever)
> >> with a broad
> >> >> >scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
> >> >> >constituencies that produce valid consensus.  In my opinion, this is
> >> >> >what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting
> >> for.  And, to
> >> >> >protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything
> >> less from an
> >> >> >applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
> >> >> >represent the international community.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
> >> >> >representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
> >> >> >Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
> >> >> >they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
> >> >> >ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
> >> >> >seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
> >> >> >difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
> >> >> >difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
> >> >> >the ccTLD constituency.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
> >> >> >comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
> >> >> >requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO
> >> status. With all
> >> >> >of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and
> >> underdeveloped
> >> >> >organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
> >> >> >ICANN itself to become unstable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Derek Conant
> >> >> >DNSGA President and Chairman
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >> >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >> >>
> >>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 03:54:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> re: 31 ccTLDs in stockholom
>
> First of all, I believe the count is 40 plus. Second, we (ccTLD) have been
> discussing a new form of relationship with ICANN for over a year now.

  Great!  Thanks for the update on the correct number Peter.  Much
appreciated.

>
>
> When combining the unanimous vote in Stockholm, with the votes of other
> ccTLDs who were present in Melbourne and Los Angeles, we are at a
> significant majority of all currently participating ccTLDs. By currently
> partici[ating, i mean that in 2 years, we have reached somewhat over 100
> cctLDs, eith on a list, face to face meeting, or by having them participate
> in an election.

  Well done!  I only hope that the ccTLD's recognize that they are very
important to their stakeholders and or registrants there within.  I also
hope that the ICANN BoD does not continue to "Game" the interests
of the ccTLD's as has been their behavior thus far...

>
>
> That said, of course we will put the resolution to the ccTLD list for
> endorsement.
>
> Peter de Blanc
> chair, ccTLD AdCom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of DPF
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 5:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700, Derek wrote:
>
> >It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status within ICANN
> >is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
> >However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
> >demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
> >consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
> >this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
> >compromised or cheapened.
>
> The ASO and PSO do not have constituencies so why should the ccSO?
>
> Nevertheless this is an interesting point.  Should the ccTLD
> registries be the *only* component of a ccTLD SO?
>
> This is worth considering before we get too far down the track.
>
> >Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
> >my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members voted (if I
> >am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
> >only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
> >proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not understand the
> >process or representations.
>
> I think you will find those 31 ccTLDs though comprise over 95% of
> ccTLD domain names and probably 99% of ICANN funding through ccTLDs.
>
> >It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
> >proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
> >ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
> >does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
> >necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
> >international community.
>
> On the contrary they have regional grouping, an international
> executive cmte and a secretariat.  They seem better organised than
> even the DNSO arguably.
>
> >If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
> >representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
> >Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
> >they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
> >ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
> >seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
> >difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
> >difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
> >the ccTLD constituency.
>
> I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
> far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
> representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
> take their ball and play elsewhere.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #514
************************