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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Alexander,
from having actively participated to the ccTLDs meeting in MDR
and discsussed the issues with most of the key persons both
within ccTLDs, Staff and ICANN, I deduce that we are at a point
of good negotiation based upon tough positions, but on non
conflicting tracks. I may be wrong, but I read the present situation
as a real opportunity for an aggregation of Staff, @large, ccTLDs
and GAC interests and solutions if well handled. Vint Cerf, Mike
Roberts, Peter de Blanc and Peter Dengate Trush, Alejandro
Pisanty are people of real caliber and of obvious motivations for
common success. Other forces are pushing towards convergence,
both from MINC and from "augmented.root". The stature and the
diversity of the elected @large Directors are certainly at level.

IMHO the priority should be to work on the stability of the net
both technically and politically: through a shared responsibility
of the root servers and in a better representation of the TLDs.
This may result in a redistribution of the SOs and of their
Directors: it does not concerns the @large. But as @large
our demands is for a better stability and a better acceptation
of new services and concepts.

The major output from MDR, as far as @large are concerned
is the affirmation by the ccTLDs that their legitimity comes
from their Local Internet Communities and not from the IANA.
This is now plainly worded in the Best Practices (to stay)
and in the draft contract proposed to the ICANN.
-  if the @large realy mean to be it, the LIC is the local
    @large constituency,
-  the ccTLDs have a mission to help developping the @large
    community if it wants to be representaitve of all the users
    (LIC).

It is therefore up to us to decide if we want to be "the users"
and to become the real owners of the internet. The real aim
of the study is to known if/how this is possible.

My bet is that we can show it in parallel of studying it. This is
entirely up to us.
Jefsey






At 12:13 23/11/00, you 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").
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>_______________________________________________________
>   ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de