[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com> 12/21/01 18:34 PM >>>

> The NCC, if it were functional, would provide an 
> international forum where non-commercial interests 
> could find common ground in DNS policy. With a ccSO 
> that potential would likely vanish. 

The NCC has been doing precisely that. The problem
is that from the beginning it has been assaulted by fifth-columnists (ICANN consultants, e.g., or agents of ccTLDs). Another problem is that DNSO is completely 
dominated by the Business constituencies.
So even if we were completely successful at 
exerting leadership (as we have been in the ORG case)
our views can be isolated and we can be rendered
helpless if someone allied to the business interests
wants to do it (which may yet happen with .org)

Yet another problem is that the DNSO itself is weak.
Bypassed by ICANN management whenever convenient - it is noteworthy, for example, that despite a unanimous
vote led by the "powerful" business constituencies
the ICANN mgmt has still not invited DNSO to be
represented on the committee discussing the future of
country name exclusions. Yet GAC and WIPO and 
Afilias are.

The relevance of this to the ccSO subject: 
if developing country interests recognize the
failure of DNSO to be a bottom up, fair, effective 
representation method and wish to tie themselves
to stronger ccTLD registries, how can we blame them? 
Why be the weakest member of a weak appendage
to the ICANN Structure? 

I think that is what this ccSO debate it all about.

--MM