[ALSC-Forum] Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo

[Jeff Williams]

Chuck and all stakeholders and interested parties,

  Thank you Chuck for providing this Memorandum.  I am also sending this
to the ALSC Forum as some of the issues you outline have been discussed
in brief on the ALSC forum.  I hope that stakeholders and supposed
ICANN At-Large members would be interested in some of this.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> MEMORANDUM
> July 24, 2001
>
> At the Stockholm meeting in early June, the ccTLD managers present voted
> unanimously to withdraw from the DNSO and form a ccTLD Supporting
> Organization.
>
> The gTLD Registry Constituency of the DNSO recently formed a task force to
> survey the contractual and other issues raised by the possible formation of
> a ccTLD SO.  We ask the ICANN community to consider the following questions.
>
> -- Chuck Gomes, chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> I.  Contractual questions
>
> A.      Will it be a condition of creation of a new SO that the ccTLDs be
> required to enter into a contract with ICANN? Will that contract require
> compliance with consensus policies?  If not, especially with regard to open
> ccTLDs, would that constitute inequitable treatment in violation of ByLaw
> and contract requirements?
> B.      What should be the relationship between a ccTLD-ICANN contract on
> re-delegation to a general ICANN policy on presumptive right to renewal for
> uTLDs (unsponsored TLDs) or sTLDs (sponsored TLDs)?
>
> II.  Reasons to have SOs
>
> A.      If the rationale for creation of a ccTLD SO is (at least in part)
> based on ensuring the payment of fees to ICANN, would that rationale also
> support creation of other SOs more directly reflecting the interests and
> views of others who also pay a high portion of ICANN fees?
> B.      If the rationale for a ccTLD SO involves assuring adequate
> representation on the ICANN Board of those whose interests may diverge and
> who are bound by contracts with ICANN, would that support creation of
> numerous additional SOs to reflect the distinct interests of gTLDs, sTLDs,
> registrars, registrants, etc.?
> C.      Are sTLDs sufficiently differently situated from uTLDs, with respect
> to their contractual relationships with ICANN and the role of Sponsoring
> Organizations in the development of policies, that they should have their
> own SO?
>
> III.  Creation of policies
>
> A.      If ccTLDs had their own SO, would domain name policy issues be
> required to be referred, routinely, to two or more SOs? Will that increase
> or diminish the difficulty of developing and documenting consensus policies?
> B.      Would a ccTLD SO have multiple constituencies, allowing groups
> affected by ccTLD policies to participate in ccTLD policy creation?
> C.      Would gTLD registries have input into ccTLD SO deliberations or
> would ccTLDs have input into DNSO deliberations? If not, how would
> disagreements be resolved?  Would the Board resolve such disputes? How would
> consensus among affected parties be developed and documented?
> IV.  Effect on the DNSO
>
> A.      If a ccTLD SO were created, what structural changes in any remaining
> DNSO would be necessary?
> B.      Would current contractual documents be required to be revised if the
> Names Council no longer existed or if it was not a definitive source of
> judgment on consensus policies impacting gTLD registries? Should gTLD
> registries agree to any such changes?
>
> V.  Board membership
>
> A.      If a ccTLD SO were allowed to elect a specified number of members of
> the ICANN Board, would that diminish the role of the DNSO in selecting Board
> members? Would it increase the number of Board members familiar with
> registry operations?
> B.      Would creation of an sTLD SO increase the representation of the
> "registry voice" on the Board? If sTLDs declined to continue to participate
> in the DNSO, would that force the creation of a separate SO for each
> category of registry?
> C.      If the main job of the Board is to recognize documented consensus,
> should Board membership be reallocated to assure that every group that could
> prevent a consensus (or unmask a false claim of consensus) on important
> policy issues has an appropriate voice?
> VI.  Structural proposals
>
> A.      What structural changes will make sense in light of ICANN's purpose?
> B.      Should restructuring provide an occasion for reallocating fees and
> costs across a wider array of groups?
> C.      Should a restructuring lead to substantial innovations in meeting
> structure and use of online deliberation tools?
> D.      Would a realignment of interests around SOs, combined with separate
> at large elections of a few Board members and the creation of an open forum
> for public participation in each SO, help to resolve disputes concerning
> representation of registrants and individuals, diminish complaints regarding
> capture of the DNSO by particular constituencies and overlaps between DNSO
> constituencies, fix the dysfunctional performance of the General Assembly
> and Names Council, and remedy other problems?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:01 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo
>
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> >
> > The attached document is a memo from the gTLD Constituency that contains a
> > list of questions that we believe need to be asked regarding the possible
> > establishment of an ICANN ccTLD Supporting Organization.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> > Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >  <<072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc>>
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------
> >                                                                      Name:
> 072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc
> >    072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc    Type:
> Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
> >                                                                  Encoding:
> base64
>
> Please do not post documents in proprietary formats such as MS word.
>
> Some of us "Don't do Windows". Even among those that do have one
> or more Win-boxes about, many of us will not open such attachments
> because of virus risks. Some systems automatically discard them at
> the firewall.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208