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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:58:31 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >threat that *the* root might become *a* root, one among more than
> > >one, is about the only thing that might force ICANN to negotiate in
> > >good faith.
> >
> >I agree. This is why I think it would really be strategically important to
> >form some sort of alliance with the ccTLDs, rather than accepting to
> >compete
> >with them for the remaining four seats.
>
> I think that ICANN may be really tempted to kill two birds with one stone by
> sharing the residual seats between at-large and ccTLDs.

  This is of course one possibility, and a likely one.  I am not sure
that the ccTLD operators will be willing to go along with this option
however.  Other more beneficial options using technology already
in existence is more attractive to the ccTLD's, and they know it.

>
> But in the end, it will be a *very bad idea* in terms of public relation,
> and implications on its own future.

  Maybe.  Maybe not for ICANN.

>
>
> First of all, we still have the official positions of Twomey and Wilkinson
> (AU+EU GAC reps) that reconsideration of the AtLarge Board seats may push
> the governments to reconsider their current position.

  The @Large board seats are only 2 right now.  That is not enough
to make the difference.

>
> Those who have participated to the ICANN adventure since (and even before)
> its inception know that the hipothesis of shaping the Internet coordination
> body as a treaty organization was more than a remote possibility: if
> "public" input via at-large is reduced, the governments will be tempted to
> interpret themselves as the way to provide "public" input to the otherwise
> industry-ruled Internet coordination body.

  Governments already claim this position currently.  So this point is moot.

>
> The current shape is the product of a compromise. If some key elements of
> this compromise are rediscussed, the whole agreement may be in danger.

  Well if this is your political logic, than the danger is already upon
us.

>
>
> Secondly, it will appear in a very clear way that the Internet will be
> managed via wild-west type of ruling. If they accept the blackmail from the
> ccTLDs, why should Verisign comply with the rules, and not ask for a seat on
> the Board threatening ICANN with the same reasonment?

  They could.  But it would be ignored.

>
> What authority will ICANN have if it will be so prone to accept compromises
> with whoever shouts louder? And if ICANN has no authority, why should not a
> different solution be sought?

  A different solution should be sought, and is quietly now Roberto.

>
>
> In other words, ICANN knows that to cede to the pressure of the ccTLDs will
> mean its disappearance.

  Not necessarily.  I will likely mean it's significance will be reduced, but not
eliminated.

> Which may well be the preferred solution by some,
> but maybe not by the majority of the ccTLDs.

  It is obvious that the ccTLD's are split right down the middle presently.
As such, it is also obvious that their influence is significant, but not
overwhelming to ICANN.

>
> The "nuclear option", quoting de Blanc, may well in itself fire back:

You mean Back Fire here Roberto, don't you?

> if the
> root will no longer be unique, what will prevent some alt.roots to include a
> different operator for some ccTLDs?

  A unique Root is not needed and possibly not preferred.  Floating Roots
and Shared Roots, work well.  ICANN will either cooperate with these
efforts and their ever growing expansion, or be reduced accordingly over
time.

> And if the new operator will manage the
> ccTLD (well, will manage the altTLD who happens to have the same string of
> an existing ccTLD) in a more "commercially aggressive" way, the (original)
> ccTLD will go out of business.

  No Roberto, not hardly.  The original ccTLD's will have more options
by which to market, and the complexity will be racketed up a notch, nothing
more.  Some have already recognized this fully.

>
>
> IMHO, the situation is exactly the reverse as it looks: the real danger for
> ICANN is to accept the blackmail, and the real danger for some ccTLDs is to
> use the "nuclear option".

  This is a fallacious conclusion based upon fallacious premise.  Please
try to be more broad in your view.

>
>
> Rergards
> Roberto
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208