[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Kent Crispin]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:32:05PM -0300, Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear friends:
> 
> We have to discuss about the proposal to create the ccSO in order to take a 
> position as a constituency.
> 
> Personally, I'm not convinced with this proposal. If we accept the creation 
> of ccSO, we will have to accept in the future the creation of a new SO for 
> gTLDs and others based in the same arguments.

I agree.  I think that the idea of a ccSO is very poorly considered, and
raises all kinds of questions that were very difficult to answer during
the DNSO formation process.  For example, would the ccSO have a
constituency structure? Would there be a NCC in the ccSO? How would
other interests participate? Would there be an IDNHC for the ccSO? 

It is certainly the case that creation of a ccSO would globally weaken
the position of all the "user" interests (Business, IP, NC etc), because
those interests would now have another forum to deal with, and other
processes to worry about.  Creation of a gtldSO would make matters even 
worse, from the point of view of the user community.

As a general rule I am very much against any further complications in 
the structure of ICANN.  ICANN already has a very complex structure.  

> I understand that the ccSO are formally under-represented. I say "formally" 
> because in the fact, there are two ICANN directors who belong to ccTLDs 
> administrators (Nii and Ivan). I also think that we can improve the 
> technical advisement to the Board from ccTLDs in the ICANN structure and 
> surely we can improve the policy-making process. But I'm not convinced that 
> the creation of the ccSO would be the best option to achieve those 
> objectives. 

During the DNSO formation process the ccTLDs were in my opinion the
least community spirited actors of the lot -- even NSI was better (or at
least more subtle -- because it had the USG to deal with).  The
much-maligned IP and big business interests (the usual whipping boys of
the NCC) were models of civic mindedness by comparision.  For example,
the ccTLDs pushed for a proposal that half the votes on the NC should go
to the registries (I should point out that I proposed that half the NC votes 
would go to an "at large" constituency...)

While the cc's frequently mention that they are an incredibly diverse
group, it is interesting to note that externally they present a very
united front with a very strong sense of self interest, and I expect
that would continue if there was a ccSO.  (Example: Peter de Blanc was a
DNSO candidate for the Board.  In his candidates statement he made the
point that while he realized that board members were supposed to
represent the corporations interests, in fact he would be representing
cc interests).  If there were a ccSO there would be no other group on
the board with such a clear vested interest. 

Recall how Amadeu recused himself from votes concerning
registry-registrar issues -- with a ccSO we could have an odd situation
where their Board representatives, if they kept the standards that
Amadeu does, would have to recuse themselves from almost all votes
concerning DNS policy.

In sum, I think it is a very bad idea to start creating SO's for 
entities with such clear vested interest.

Kent

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain