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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Alexander,
you are right. I may not consider enough the GAC position yet as
I am under the impression they are used by the ICANN Staff (letter
of Mike Roberts to the Govs as a not supposed menace on ccTLDs).
To wich extend this letter is planned or an error, I do not know. It
is probably both.

Again, this is negotiations and the moe time flows, the less my
MDR reading will be accurate.

I think you are right IRT the @large vs. ccTLDs. This is why they
talk about Local Internet Community as they may put in it their
present partners. It is up to us to show them their advantage to
get all their market in it ... and to behave as a community, not like
a small chapel.
Jefsey

At 22:06 23/11/00, you wrote:

>Hi Jefsey!
>
>Thanks for your report!
> > 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.
>
>I hope that you are right. However, there still is some
>fear and distrust around. The ccTLD seem cautious of GAC
>imposing more control. "ICANN" is afraid of GAC because
>the governments in the end have more power, and they
>obviously have to get the ccTLDs on board, or ICANN would
>fail. @large in turn is cautious of Staff and GAC. So
>there is a lot of confidence-building to be done, but I
>think that the newly elected directors and a successful
>study process will/would help a lot.
>
> > 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.
>
>Yes, but a redistribution even within the SOs will obviously not be
>that easy. E.g. what is the dividing line between a supporting
>organization for the ccTLDs and the existing DNSO? Will the ccTLDs
>move out of DNSO? Surely they cannot be represented twice? If they
>move out, how does this affect the DNSO's scope? And so on. The
>problems are by no means unsolvable, but require a lot of thinking.
>
> > 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.
>
>That, I think, is an important statement -- not only with
>regards to IANA/ICANN, but also regarding the governments' role.
>
> > 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).
>
>But I have my doubts whether the ccTLD admins are really
>that enthusiastic about At Large activity. Sometimes I have
>the impression that many come from the part of the technical
>community that are a bit user-sceptic. Well, time will tell.
>
> > 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.
>
>I very much hope so!
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander