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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, at 18:22 [=GMT+0100], 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.
> But in the end, it will be a *very bad idea* in terms of public relation, 
> and implications on its own future.
> 
> 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.
> 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: 

That should be avoided at all cost. Keep the UN out, please. WIPO is
causing enough misery already. And the WHO just shows what sort of
funny ideas UN bodies can get about the internet with its .health tld
proposal with built-in censorship. 

> 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.
> 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.

Then why does ICANN start a clean sheet study of the At Large
Directors? Not a clever idea in the light of your remarks.

> 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, 

Blackmail? Do you pay invoices without a contract, for amounts not
even negotiated but levied? I have never heard of anyone prepared to
pay a tax (for that is what it is, if it isn't negotiated) to an
authority that has no power to make people pay. 

> In other words, ICANN knows that to cede to the pressure of the ccTLDs will 
> mean its disappearance. Which may well be the preferred solution by some, 
> but maybe not by the majority of the ccTLDs.
> The "nuclear option", quoting de Blanc, may well in itself fire back: if the 
> root will no longer be unique, what will prevent some alt.roots to include a 
> different operator for some ccTLDs? 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.

This sounds highly unlikely to me as far as ccTLDs are concerned. It
is sooner going to happen in the gTLD arena.

> 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".

I am not afraid of the nuclear option. Will the red button likely be
pressed? There are very many people that would have to agree about
that first. And there are major differences between the ccTLDs in so
many ways. It might happen that some and not all of them start looking
elsewhere for root servers. Then things will be really awkward. But
since we know it may happen, we can prepare ourselves.

-- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)