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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>]

Jefsey,

>I am worried bout your quoting the Yokohama positions as until recently
>Peter Donegate Trush who is one of the leader of the ccTLDs position was a
>consultant in the GAC NZ delegation. Also because Peter de Blanc and him
>are new management of the ccTLD constituency. Also because in MDR some
>ccTLDs supported alliances so different from previous ones (just look at
>the list of the represented countries - and the different types of ccTLD
>management - and think they unanimoulsy voted the text of an unique
>contract template).

I don't think that the GAC position has changed.
But I agree that the ccTLD position has changed ;>)
Are you assuming that the Governments will change position in the future 
because the ccTLDs did?

>
>At this stage I believe that GAC positions should be considered very
>carefully as the disputes between the ICANN and the ccTLDs are (most
>probably) the image of the tensions between the USA and the rest of (some)
>world.

As I said before, one thing is the position of the Governments, other thing 
is the position of the ccTLDs, which is only related to a question of 
"taxation vs. representation".
In other words, when the ccTLDs ask for a "CCSO", this has nothing to do 
with the "representation of the users" in the sense that Twomey gave to it, 
but "representation of themselves", i.e. the interests of the ccTLDs as 
businesses.


>
>You obviously want to support the ICANN and stability. I feel that the
>statu quo satisfies nobody, starting with Staff and BoD. (I think) they
>need our support to move in the right direction. And that direction is
>certainly an "augmented.root" with the root service enlarged to ccTLDs and
>TLDs for better co-responsibility and a revised distribution of the forces
>within the ICANN so the different stakeholders may become together "WE the
>ICANN" and rule out the "THEY the ICANN squatters" many still think with
>reason. This obviouisly calling first on a legal stability (trhough a
>bylaws modification mecanism) to permit a further operations stability
>through an enlarged RSSAC member of a TLDSO including cc,g and p TLDs.


I respect your opinion, but even if the "status quo" does not make me happy, 
the "augmented.root" will make me even more unhappy (and I definitively see 
this a step in the *wrong* direction).
Moreover, if we are unable to govern the situation with one centralized 
root, we have to admit that the chances of govern a multiple root situation 
will be even smaller.
The introduction of new additional alternate roots will be just a matter of 
time (and money), and the ISPs pointing to one or the other only a matter of 
economic alliances. It may be good, in the end, but surely will be 
different, and in any case will be a situation in which I do not see any 
role for ICANN or similar. Maybe for Microsoft or SAIC, but not for an 
international body that will try to take into account the different needs of 
the different parts of the world.

I may be wrong, and it may well be that the ccTLDs will feel that their 
interest is better protected if they go for a new root. Well, we will have 
to live with that, because once this is started, we will never go back to 
the single root. But I take bets that if we go that way some of the current 
ccTLDs will be out of business in a very short time, because their only 
reason for being in business now is the fact that they are delegated by 
their own Government to be in the *unique* root, and that they will not 
stand competition.
This is why I think that the "nuclear option" is only a threat, and that a 
lot of ccTLDs are against the decision to *press the red button*.
We will see ;>).

Regards
Roberto


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