Re: [icann-eu] Does the ICANN legally exist (this is not a joke)?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jeff,
this discussion is of real interest!

At 21:46 08/12/00, you wrote:
>Jefsey,
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > At 09:58 08/12/00, you wrote:
> > > > No. ccTLDs are not demanding that mach as they do not really care.
> > > > They demand to control the budget. They will be just doing that in 
> being
> > > > the DNSO/GA. Also they have many additional powers as calling for
> > > > a Board meeting, etc....
> > >Being a NC member of the DNSO I think you mean here?
> > Sorry, ICANN/GA. Get over tired at typing. :-)
>
>Ok Understood. <snip>



> > >as it relates to the demand that ICANN has thrust upon the ccTLD 
> registries
> > >for budget (1/3) funding for ICANN.  Hence, it is necessary and prudent
> > >that ccTLD registries as well as gTLD registries have appropriate
> > >representation on the ICANN board, which they currently do not have
> > >and the current ICANN board is not willing presently to allow.
> > Well. The GA votes the budget.
>
>It does!!!??  Sinse when?  Only the ICANN board votes budget for
>ICANN as a whole.  Now the NC, votes budget for the DNSO, and
>than that is either approved or not approved by the ICANN Board.

This is one of the interesting role of a GA a financial report is to be 
presented
to the GA annual meeting..

> > > > I do not think the cc/gTLDs shoud seat es quality at the Board.
> >
> > "es" is latin meaning here "because of their". Sorry. What I mean
> > there should be 3 ccTLDs at the BoD. There are two possibilibties:
>
>We [INEGroup] strongly disagree here.  THere should be 1/3 of the
>ICANN board represented by ccTLD/gTLD entities.

Take into account 3 coming from ccTLDs and 9 @large including most
probably TLDs representatives ;-)

> > - either a TLDSO what calls for a change and an unbalance with the initial
> >    targets of the ICANN. This change would probably not be accepted
> >    by the USG (as it changes the nature of the ICANN). It would also
> >    create problems with the new (million) of TLDs.
>
>There will never be a million TLD's, Jefsey.

I bet my shirt there will be. How many forenames and how many names
in the world. Do you think people will easily remember if you are
http://jeff.willams.name or http://jeff.williams.nom when you can be
http://jeff.williams

TLDs is just a discriminator in a menomic semantic directional structure.
Gee! I said it! And there are people still confusing that with TMs !!!

> > -  or a ccTLDs representation for each of the main subject of the
> >      ICANN (these three subjects do interest ccTLDs) and to continue
> >      TLDs representation through the NC as per today.
>
>  Not adequate representation.

You do what you want with the NC: this is not something the USG is
going look into to know if a responsible and stable non profit organization
has been set-up. It does not belong specifically to the Cooperative
Model.

> > >Are you referring to the @Large here?  If so we [INEGroup] agree.

The SO and @large Non Statutory Members electing the Board is not
usual even under CA law (cf. "Thus, Nonstatutory Members as
contemplated as a possibility for ICANN would be an unusual approach,
and could not be based on clear legal precedent").

To have a NonStatutory Member structure like used in the ICANN
electing the Directors and the StatutoryMembers not electing the
Dire tors would certainly fall among the "other devices that more creative
minds could devise" (document responding a Staff analysis for the @large
council) but it is permitted by the ICANN unique structure.
http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership.htm
.

> > I am sorry, but I think you will disagree with this position. You see,
> > in comming month/years TLDs will just be a small community of
> > stakeholders. Only a super DN. When we talk about ccTLDs we
> > actually talk about NICs, one per country.
>
>gTLD's can also be arranged through NIC's as well.

Yes. This is what I ask for. This is why million of TLDs will occur.
I think that ccTLDs/NICs will join in managing the root and will
register TLDs.  I think that eventually gTLDs - except may be legacy
ones - will join one NIC or another form of  cooperative agreement.
Rome has not been built in one day.

The Cooperative model does not modify anything existing today.
It just *adds*what should be a solution to some existing difficulties.

> > However I do accept that gTLD today importance (and the $ 50.000)
> > puts them into a special position, hence the ICANN/GA Membership
> > in the Cooperative Model.
>
>Except there is really no ICANN/GA or @Large per se today.  At least
>they have no real power or the current ICANN Board will not allow for
>the ICANN/GA - @Large to have any real power on the Board.

May be true, may be not that much.

1. I do not know if the BoD is so ill advised as you believe
2. it is its interest if it wants the ICANN to survive this winter time
3. they are for long engaged into that in wanting new TLDs to appear.
4. the USG will make pressure on them.

> > > > I just
> > > > propose the ccTLD because of their other involvements and because they
> > > > are the back bone of the ICANN Members (SM and NSM) through the
> > > > world.
> > >
> > >How so?  Most of the possible members of the @large ICANN membership
> > >are gTLD DN holders (Stakeholders), not ccTLD registries.
> >
> > *this* is what is blurring the issue.
> > 1. this is changing with multinational domain names
>
>Yes it is.  And it will also change with multinational gTLD's as well.

Agreed.  New forms of NICs are emerging: look at the 4 Chinese TLDs.

> > 2. NICs should be gTLDs registrars as well so we may talk about communities
>
>I think you mean Registries here, not Registrars?

No, my English may be poor? I mean the NICs will register TLDs and offer
a registrar management service to them if they so desire.

Let say I register dot.Williams with the NIC of Singapore. I would offer
one dollar to the USNIC to register jeff.williams. It would be simpler for
me to have the Singapore NIC to organize that with the USNIC and me
to pay them an extra buck. I would keep $ 8 and charge you $ 15/year,
paying may be $5 a year the Singapore NIC to host my zone server.

> > 3. NICs should register local and cultural, etc.. TLDs applications
> >      (you cannot have one million of TLDs handled by the ICANN. Karl
> >      proposes a lottery to allocate TLDs, I prefer to have 250 accredited
> >      TLD registries).
>
>I don't think a limit should be put on what should be "Accredited TLD
>Registries".  Nor do our members, nor does Karl.  He only put out the
>"250" number as a starting point.

You are right. But again keep things under control. ICANN "franchise"
starts with 250 shops.There is room for development. One million
TLD is 4000 a franchisee, some help may be welcome!

> > > > gTLDs will have already very important powers through the GA.
> > >
> > >But not good enough and also not represented on the ICANN board.
> > >Hence limiting their voice and influence on policy decisions.
> >
> > I do not think we want an overwhelming importance of the gTLDs.
>
>We fundamentally disagree here.

Yes. You want the gTLDs to rule the world, don't you?
I want them to be free to develop. I am doe free business for all.
Including both ccTLDs, gTLDs and local TLDs.

> > ICANN is here to foster competition. The existing competition is
> > between ccTLDs and gTLDs (with various variations from .tv to
> > CCNIC).
>
>You forget competition with and between gTLD's as well.

Not yet, so I do not know. I stated discussing the first TLD
sale within the alt.root. I am not sure that NSI is not going to buy a
few TLDs (VeriSign has purchased NSI and the "commercial
property" as they say of .com,, .net, .org?

> > > > Just remember there may be millions of gTLDs. Anyway the model I 
> propose
> > > > is for one year test bed until the end of the @large study.
> > >
> > >The @Large study can and is currently being manipulated in directions that
> > >are not yet clear, but rapidly evolving.
> >
> > If you say so... But what is interesting is the outcome of a study which is
> > actually a negociation, a preparation, an observation, etc...
>
>And limited as to participants.  Hardly a negotiation in good faith.

Negotiation is never in good faith, Jeff, or you lose. Good faith is what
you obtain if the outcome is balanced and good enough to both!


<snip>

> > Sorry, that I do not know. Probably coming on the GAC. Got the e-mail
> > of the official letter copied in my mail yesterday I believe.
>
>Well I queried several members of the GAC.  They deny that it is an
>"Official" document yet.

I will try to find it back and copy it to you.

<snip>

> > the changes in the bylaws should be approved by the ICANN/GA
> > for the ICANN and he network to obtain some political stability
> > it currently misses.
>
>And this is the crux of the problems with ICANN, in a nutshell.

Yes. If you read the archive you see that Joe Sims is an aficionado
of the bylaws rodeo. The Cooperative model should help, however
it seems they may have some legal device construed to continue
changing bylaws on whimsical fly.

Jefsey