[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM]

Hi!

>From Milton:
>
> If the NCDNHC and ccTLDs are "under the same (policy
> making) roof" then we must negotiate and enter into
> dialogue with each other, at least on GLOBAL issues.
> We can then present to the Board a "consensus."

Or a list of consensus points and dissenting positions. Point is, this is
about domain-name policy.

>
> If there is a separate ccSO, then the CCs make their
> own policy proposal, the "users" make their own, and
> the "suppliers" make another. Who decides which one
> to implement? In what forum do these different views
> get reconciled?

Careful: it may not be referring to domain names only any more.

>
> It can only be a) the Board or b) the ICANN
> management.
>
> Does the ICANN Board want to be the ultimate broker
> and negotiator of all the compromises and deals
> required to get a consensus policy? Probably it is
> not up to the task - it is an unpaid, voluntary,
> part-time Board.

...which has proven up to this and more in those occasions where the
guidance offered at the SO level has turned out to be insufficient.

>
> So that leaves the management/staff.
>
> Is that what we want?

This is a strawman argument. The concern we may need to face first is
whether the NCDNHC (continuing to concentrate on domain-name issues) wants
to have to discuss global domain-name issues outside the DNSO. Still an
open question, for what I see in the discussion over yesterday and today
Sunday.

Alejandro Pisanty

>
> >>> "Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> 12/20/01 09:44PM >>>
> the NCDNHC was formed to enter dialogue with other types of
> interests in domain names: registries, registrars, ccTLD administrators,
> etc. As long as we are under the same roof we may try to give discussions
> a global significance. The NCDNHC - ccTLD relation is more or less on an
>
>
>