[CCWG-ACCT] Membership thoughts

Sat Jan 24 18:39:31 UTC 2015

At the point in time when rfc1591 documented the use of iso3166 code 
points (allocated by the iso3166/MA, then the DIN in Munich) as the 
mechanism that allowed Jon to "farm out work" to "friends of Jon" 
(shorthand for trusted, competent persons, most of whom did not share 
offices at ISI's offices on Admiralty Way). I had urged Jon to consider 
regions rather than "country codes" as the scaling mechanism, as this 
would have allowed non-states to obtain regional sub-delegations, and 
prevented pre-mature allocations, some of which were captured, and many 
of which were poorly operated, and all identified without analysis with 
the sovereignty interests of most parties assigned iso3166-1 code points.

Which is to say I know that Eberhard is making reference to a real issue 
-- whether a regional aggregation of the present ccTLD manager interests 
is equivalent, for the purposes of nominal "membership" and the 
capacities of "members", with the disaggregated interests of the present 
ccTLD managers.

At the point in time where Jon and I discussed X.121 vs iso3166-1 I 
thought the regional aggregation the better choice. At the point in time 
where we are now, at least half of the registries associated with 
iso3166-1 code points are competently operated, and the incompetence 
case for regions now moot. Of course, the absence of a means of access 
to delegations from the IANA root zone for minority peoples, first 
nations, and occupied territories (with the clever exception of the 
promotion of "ps" as a statistical identifier), and aggregations (again, 
with the clever exception of "eu" as a currency identifier), are not yet 
mooted.

The subject deserves thoughtful discussion, and the responses to 
Eberhard's initial note and followup (quoted below), are not that.

> In any case and notwithstanding that my position on the regional 
> organization(s) has been well documented for well over 8 years, as not 
> all ccTLD Managers are members of a RO, even a legitimate RO can only 
> represent represent its members.
>
> This is consistent with my repeatedly stated position that AC/SOs can 
> not be come "members" as they do not represent all TLDs.
>
>
> Even to the the most cursory observer it should be obvious that adding 
> unaccountable "members" will not increase Accountability.

Let's not be uncivil, or add to the list traffic without substance.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

On 1/23/15 10:27 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Yes,
>
> I am fundamentally opposed to the Regional Organizations of the ccNSO 
> having anything to do with or say in this.
>
> I have no objections against all (cc)TLD Managers becoming "members".
>
> el
>
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
> On Jan 24, 2015, at 07:56, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Could you explain your reasoning so that we can better understand 
>> your position?  Thank you.
>>
>> Greg Shatan
>>
>> *Gregory S. Shatan*
>>
>> Partner|***Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>>
>> *666 Third Avenue **|**New York, NY 10017-5621*
>>
>> *Direct*212-885-9253 *| **Main*212-949-9022
>>
>> *Fax*212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>>
>> */gsshatan at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>>
>> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>>
>> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na 
>> <mailto:el at lisse.na>> wrote:
>>
>>     Just to state this early, over my dead boy will the Regional
>>     Organizations of the ccNSO have anything to do or say in this.
>>
>>     I would not mind every (cc)TLD Manager.
>>
>>     el
>>
>>     Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>>
>>     > On Jan 24, 2015, at 01:32, Bruce Tonkin
>>     <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>>     <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > Hello Greg,
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >>> Just brainstorming: one possibility may be to create "mirror"
>>     or "alter ego" organizations (perhaps corporations, perhaps some
>>     other form of organized entity), roughly along the lines of the
>>     NRO/ASO relationship (the ASO is an ICANN internal structure,
>>     while the NRO is not, yet they are essentially "alter egos"). 
>>     Thus, each SO and AC could create an entity independent of ICANN,
>>     but answerable to that SO and AC.  The external entities could
>>     then be members of ICANN.
>>     >
>>     > My understanding also is that to be "members" the organizations
>>     would need to be legal entities.  In a few of the examples given
>>     in this thread,  the "coordinating" organizations are not yet
>>     established as legal entities.
>>     >
>>     > For example, the Number Resource Organization (
>>     https://www.nro.net/) is a coordinating body for the 5 Regional
>>     Internet Registries (RIRs).   These five RIRs are legal entities
>>     - so it may make more sense for them to be the "members" of ICANN.
>>     >
>>     > My understanding is that groups like the Registrar
>>     constituency, and the registrar stakeholder group
>>     (http://www.icannregistrars.org/ ) are deliberately not
>>     established as legal entities, or as trade associations.    They
>>     are coordinating groups - but any legal agreements etc are always
>>     between individual registrars as legal entities and ICANN.     
>>     Recently a domain name industry association was established - I
>>     assume this is a legal entity (http://www.thedna.org/ ).
>>     >
>>     > Regards,
>>     > Bruce Tonkin
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>     > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>     >
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150124/b2e0df80/attachment.html>