Re: [icann-eu] Re: [ICANN-EU] ccTLDs to ask for BoD seats?

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, at 12:13 [=GMT+0100], Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:
> >> According to
> >> <http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/chr-14.11.00-002/>, the ccTLD
> >> constituency is asking for their own seats on ICANN's board, and
> >> possibly interested in the four remaining At Large seats.
> >
> > Ted Byfield has some more details, and partial transcripts of the
> > relevant session, under
> >
> > 	  <http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/index.html>
> 
> See also
> http://www.wwtld.org/communique/20001113.ccTLDmdr-communique.html
> 
> I asked Peter de Blanc (ccTLD Administrative Committee) for
> a bit of clarification (shortly after the L.A. meeting), and 
> he seemed to be keen on emphasizing that nothing is determined
> yet. The ccTLD Constituency within DNSO is going to form a
> Working Group "to explore alternative mechanisms for ccTLD 
> representation in ICANN" -- maybe a kind of ccTLD Supporting
> Organization, maybe a GAC-type Advisory Committee or something
> else. (A ccTLD-SO would of course be a major shake-up!)
> 
> It's hard to judge, but maybe all this should be taken with a
> grain of salt. After all, there are ICANN--ccTLD negotations
> on the agenda, and both sides are preparing for them. I don't
> see that the ccTLDs really are after the four interim At Large
> seats, and their web site (http://www.wwtld.org/) seems to
> indicate that they regard At Large director Nii Quaynor as one 
> of theirs ("ICANN Board Directors originating from the ccTLD 
> Constituency").

And what about the third option mentioned at the meeting:

"And the third, and least attractive one [i.e. option] for us, is to
look elsewhere for root service."

Vain threats?

-- 
Marc Schneiders

"In re tam iusta nulla est deliberatio."
(Acta SS. Mart. Scillitanorum [AD 202])