[atlarge-discuss] Fw: [cctld-discuss] User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

This is a valuable subject to discuss.
Users' role and representation in ccTLDs as well as in gTLDs.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: [cctld-discuss] User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> Danny
> happy to comment:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>; <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that you have
> asked,
> > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and registrars to sit
> > around the table with their user community?"
> >
> > In light of this question, can you identify the functional mechanism by
> which
> > relevant user community input will be respected within the proposed ccSO?
> > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer some
> structural
> > guidance to the GNSO...
> >
> Happy to explain the cc position -but it is so different it may not have
> many applicable points of precedent for the G-registries.
> 
> The point is that every cctld is a mini DNSO at home - or might be. That is,
> there is a user community made up of individuals, large and small
> businesses, interested academics plus, a registry manager, a set of
> governmental objectives (justice, security, commerce,tax, etc) and more and
> more-  a set of registrars. How they deal with the balance of those
> interests is entirely within the power of that community. This is something
> which all seem to be agreed on, and is commonly referred to in  the
> shorthand of  "sovereignty".
> 
> There is an enormous range of responses to this issue -some local
> communities are developed along lines of "western" democratic institutions,
> others are still run relatively autocratically but benevolently  by original
> "friends of Jon" in the academic community. Many are run as quasi
> departments of the state, and among those there is a range of levels
> provided for user input into policy making. The top twenty (by registration
> no's ) cctlds that all provide some kind of policy making or policy advisory
> board, according to my private enquiries and experience.
> 
> Any issue about the effectiveness, fairness or whatever in the operation of
> a particular cctld's policy making process is entirely within the ambit of
> that cctld community, and entirely outside the scope of ICANN's role.
> 
> (This is something the ICANN staff have been at pains to point out since the
> beginning -there is no way they can begin to intervene in the policy making
> in any, let alone many of the 240+ cctlds.)
> 
> So, issues of consumer representation need to be dealt with in the local
> community, according to the laws and customs of each country. There would be
> no quicker way to spell the end of ICANN, and to force governments to
> intervene if there was any suggestion that an outside US corporation was
> going to dictate procedures and policies on matters affecting local
> sovereignty.
> 
> It is my hope that an ICANN could be constructed where by consensus among
> cctlds. operating in their own ccSO, that "Best Practices" could be
> developed for voluntary adoption by cctlds, and which would begin to have
> the moral authority of widely adopted consensus practice.
> 
> Such a body would also continue the outreach which has been a feature of the
> cctld activity, and assist the development of those Practices in new and
> emerging countries. Naturally, this needs to be done with huge
> sensitivity -countries need to be entirely free to adopt policies that meet
> the local conditions.
> 
> Considerable work has also been done on how policies made in the DNSO might
> be brought to the attention of the ccSO. Provided they were policies made by
> consensus in the DNSO, a process for considering their adoption in the ccSO
> is set out at http://www.wwtld.org/ongoing/ccso_formation/ccSOinput2.html.
> 
> This process is therefore available to bring to the attention of the ccSO
> policies that affect users.
> 
> But, it is very important to understand the limits -the ccSO is never going
> to be able to impose a policy relating to users rights (for example) on any
> cctld which chooses not to adopt it. As with other example of international
> agreements, primarily treaties, cctlds will be free to opt out of policies
> that their local law or custom opposes.
> 
> But, just as with the UDRP, a policy made in the g-space might well be seen
> as useful by the cctlds individually and adopted locally. Many individual
> cctlds have adopted without change the UDRP - many others have used it as a
> springboard to develop their own national policies, and I see that kind of
> cross over continuing.
> 
> The critical role for ICANN is to recognise its role as a coordinator, not a
> manger, to allow these developments to occur under the control, and at the
> pace of those affected.
> 
> So, the process is different  -cctlds have a local internet community, with
> varying degrees of consumer input on policy - the g-space doesn't have a
> convenient geographic boundary on its community, and ICANN needs to build
> one. That is going to be the GNSO, which could be built by reference to
> those successful cctld communities, where there is an attempt at balancing
> govt, user, provider and other interests. Of course, the issues are
> arger  -there are more registries than the single registry of a cctld, more
> registrars, and consumers and governments from all over the globe to be
> incorporated.... a worth challenge.
> 
> Hope thats helpful
> 
> regards
> 
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cctld-discuss mailing list
> cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> http://www.wwtld.org/mailman/listinfo/cctld-discuss
>