[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM]

Hi!

> 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.

This is surely one of the most abysmally low points in the debate the
NCDNHC has yet witnessed.

> So even if we were completely successful at
> exerting leadership (as we have been in the ORG case)

Unfortunately this is much more apparent than real.


>

> 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.

Will act on this point.

>
> The relevance of this to the ccSO subject:
> if developing country

Only a small part of the ccSO subject is even remotely related to
developing-country issues.

 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.
>

I beg to differ. A lot more dynamics may be at work. Awareness of them is
a must to continue discussing the ccSO debate. Otherwise it becomes mostly
a distractor. Milton has called the NCDNHC to provide guidance on specific
questions on .ORG and the discussion on ccSO has turned attention away
from it. Which is not to say we must reopen the whole thing; there is
enough to work on!

Alejandro Pisanty

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