[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Jim Fleming]

Some of the so-called ccTLDs have abandoned their "cc-ish nature" and
are really just gTLDs. Actually, all TLDs are just TLDs in the eyes of the
servers, and the customers that use them. Now that 2002 is almost here,
people are focused on routing around ICANN, so much of the concern is
now a moot point. Most of the ccTLDs have not progressed and are not
in the Exclusive Root. That was their choice.

Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?

Jim Fleming
Why Gamble on a .BIZ Lottery? Start a Real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>