Re: [cctld-discuss] ccNSO membership applications.

[Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl>]

Dear Paul,

Well, it is not big bad ICANN doing this, it is your colleagues in
the Launching Group who are saying that *if it is possible*, we could try
to have elections in time for Tunisia. If it is not possible, we will
have them later.

I often think that your comments are right on the mark, but this time
I really do not understand some of your objections. Serious ccTLDs
(as you call them) have known since Montreal that the Launching Group
was going to issue a call for membership applications (after all,
this is one of the few tasks it is supposed to perform), and it is
possible that some of them may have been discussing this with their boards.
In particular, we at NIC Chile held a special meeting of our Advisory
Board to discuss this matter last August 8th, and the Board recommended
that we join the ccNSO.

As to the unknown costs, Article IX Section 7 states that the fees must
be approved by the members and that are "to defray expenses of the ccNSO".
So, I see no reason to expect anything substantially different from what
the cost of running the old ccTLD Secretariat had been. I know this is
not a firm guarantee that the fees will be low, but you can always leave
the ccNSO if you think it is acting in an abusive way. Furthermore,
I don't think the Launching Group can give you any such guarantee,
it is not within its powers, as the fees will be determined once the
ccNSO is constituted and the Council elected.

Patricio


On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:11:47AM +0100, Paul M Kane wrote:
> Hi Chris
> 
> Thanks for posting this BUT ... (I really apologies for being the BUT 
> man ... have I understood this correctly.....
> 
> ICANN are suggesting that in less than 1 week they expect serious ccTLDs 
> to commit to something where the costs are not known and they need to 
> have their Registry Board Approval for joining. Further if the purpose 
> of the ccNSO is to "Nurture consensus across the ccNSO's community, 
> including the name-related activities of ccTLDs" - an inclusive dialogue 
> should be started amongst ALL ccTLD managers, making them feel part of a 
> "good things" rather than "rail-roaded" into the unknown.
> 
> It will be difficult for many ccTLDs to organise a Board meeting to 
> consider membership of the ccNSO (it is ridiculously short); the outcome 
> of the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the 3rd September on 
> "obliging" ICANN make ccTLD follow gTLD Policy (see attached letter) and 
> URL on the Justice Committee hearing - will not be known .... and 
> remember ccNSO membership also causes ccTLDs signing up commit to 
> following ICANN's own Bylaws.
> 
> Is this not a simple ruse for those "insiders" who have been close to 
> the development of the ccNSO to sign up for membership, then (almost) 
> self select themselves to the Council, and then have the "hand picked" 
> Council members self select 2 representatives the Board???
> 
> I urge the Launching Group - to start acting responsibly and start 
> dialogue so ccTLDs can feel part of the ccNSO community - not rush 
> something through by publishing an unrealistic time table which assists 
> in "insider" self selection.
> 
> I want to be supporting this process but boy..... there is so much wrong 
> with it..... as a wise person wrote to me privately:
> 
> The ICANN is:
> 
> "now complemented with a nice, brand new carriage solely for ccTLDs whose
> (prospective) passengers don't care about the train's direction but like
> how fast it's going and concentrate on who will occupy the first class
> compartments and who will be appointed conductor...
> 
> Before boarding the train we need to find out which direction the train 
> is moving, the cost .... and if there is sufficient railway track to 
> make it to the desired destination.
> 
> IMHO it would be better to have the membership period open until 
> Carthage and let (prospective) Council members present themselves in 
> person, so proper evaluation of the skills of the candidate can be 
> undertaken. This has two advantages i) more ccTLDs will be involved in 
> the ccNSO process, ii) the best candidates will be (s)elected to the 
> Council, thereby significanlty enhancing the legitimacy of the ccNSO.
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> Chris Disspain wrote:
> 
> >The Launching Group has now published a call for membership applications.
> >
> >For more information and to apply please see http://ccnso.icann.org/ 
> >or follow the link from ICANN?s home page
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Chris Disspain
> >


_______________________________________________
cctld-discuss mailing list
cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
http://www.wwtld.org/mailman/listinfo/cctld-discuss