[ncdnhc-discuss] PIR and NCUC

[Adam Peake]

Alejandro touched on an important issue in a recent note when he 
wondered why we seemed tyo struggle to generate comment and 
discussion on issues like WHOIS, deletes, transfers, etc.  As a 
constituency of the GNSO, I think we need to ask who are the NCC's 
constituents?

Are those of us who register under cctlds constituents?  I think 
probably not.  Our interests are with the cc supporting organization. 
(Same for the .org .or organizations that register under cctlds.)

And those under .EDU -- not (as I understand it) and ICANN TLD. 
Their interests are also elsewhere.  (and .US would be somewhere else 
again.)

So we're left with organizations registering under .ORG, .NET, .COM, 
and the new 7.

We've heard criticism over the years that the NCC has been overly 
interested in policy and process. I wonder if this not (just!) the 
result of loud mouth activists, but more a reflection of the true 
interests of the constituency? Example: we've been told general 
academic interests are either missing or have left in 
disgust/disillusionment/whatever. But the real problem may be, by and 
large, that they really don't belong here (.EDU, however it is 
structured, is where their own WHOIS/deletes/transfers, etc., issues 
should be discussed, and have relevance to their name), and while 
we've tried to force them in, they haven't jelled.  Same for the 
diversity of global interests.  Little sustained interest.

I'm aware this pretty sweeping, and I am not saying that the only 
interest of the constituency should be advocacy, there is obviously a 
massively diverse community under .ORG alone.  And the constituency 
has clearly lacked participation from the research network type 
activities that might come from some of the .NET registrants (as just 
one example.)  Now might be a good time to look at some of these 
issues.

Thanks,

Adam

(er... http://www.glocom.org)


At 8:01 AM +0900 12/6/02, YJ Park wrote:
>I can join the meeting.
>
>On the other hand, the NCDNHC has several issues on the table.
>
>1st, are we going to accept this as our new name supposing that
>we do still have right to self-orgaize or self-mobilize ourselves?
>
>2nd, if so, how are we going to define membership structure
>accordingly and others in our charter and what could be the effective
>partcipation from now on in the ICANN II?
>
>3rd, if not, what can be the options we have?
>
>YJ
>
>>  I will be in Amsterdam and willing to discuss this with
>>  any PIR representatives who are there.
>>  --MM
>>
>>  >>> "YJ Park" <yjpark at myepark.com> 12/04/02 05:54AM >>>
>>  I suggest the 2002 AdCom or NC start to contact ISOC or PIR
>>  who promised to pay NCUC(then NCDNHC) yearly dues like
>>  other .ORG application proposers.
>>
>>  YJ
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Discuss mailing list
>>  Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>  http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--