[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Kent Crispin]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:47:29PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> I am also skeptical of a ccSO proposal, although for
> very different reasons. But there are also reasons to
> favor it. It depends on the alternatives.
> 
> Unlike Crispin, who views them as a special interest,
> I view the ccTLDs as basically registries, not much
> different from Neulevel or Verisign.

I do not see any conflict whatsoever between the two views -- it seems
to me unarguable that Registries are a special interest, and in fact,
for a long time during the formation of the DNSO all the registries were
lumped together into a "registries constituency".  Only late in the 
game was the registries constituency split into ccTLDs and the gTLDs -- 
the fact that NSI was the sole member of the gTLD constituency for a 
long time was a standing joke.

I believe it is also unarguable that the ccTLDs are acting as a special 
interest group.  The primary issues they are concerned with are issues 
of contractual obligations and payments to ICANN.

> In quite a few
> cases they are also registrars. So their fundamental
> economic interests are very much in line with the
> so-called "suppliers." 
> 
> The ccSO's argue against this position by pointing 
> out that most cc's have governance structures 
> imposed on them that make them more representative 
> of a defined internet community in a country. This 
> argument has some merit. Even Louis Touton 
> proposes to treat them as "sponsored" TLDs
> in his contractual scheme. 
> However, even if ccTLDs are representative 
> of a national Internet community (some are
> not) they are still fundamentally registries.
> 
> If ccTLDs were required to provide full 
> representation to user groups and individual
> domain name holders then a ccSO makes
> sense.

I argue that even in that case it does not make sense:

1) It would still seriously complicate the efforts of the members of the
NCC -- would we all become members of the ccSO equivalent of a
non-commercial constituency? This would be true for all the other
constituencies of the DNSO, as well.

2) By far the biggest concerns motivating the creation of a ccSO are
concerns of contractual obligations and finances.  These are the
concerns of an advocacy group.  

> If we just take the existing ccTLD
> constituency and make it into a SO, I would
> oppose it.

Regardless of claims, it is clearly the concerns of the cc constituency
as a CONSTITUENCY that are motivating the creation of a ccSO.

> A more long term issue: as the TLD space expands 
> I expect the domain registration share of ccTLDs 
> to shrink. Then they might be overrepresented
> in ICANN's structure if we give them their own
> SO. Like the telephone monopolies in ITU, they
> might try to structure DNS regulations in ways
> that would preserve their market share.

I agree with this point.

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