[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Jim Fleming]

From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
"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."
---------

Most "non-profit" companies depend on donations to operate.
For-profit companies depend on payments from customers.
ICANN does not seem to fit in the "non-profit" package.

@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html

Exemption Requirements - § 501(c)(6)  ...  "A business league, in general,
is an association of persons having some common business interest, the
purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a
regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit."  ...  "No
part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or
organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit (even
if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only
sufficient income to be self-sustaining)."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO


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