[CCWG-ACCT] Membership thoughts

Sat Jan 24 19:01:41 UTC 2015

Eric,

Thank you for your email, and your further background on the issue that
Eberhard referred to.  My inquiry to him was merely intended to understand
his reasoning and the background that informed it.  It's unfortunate that
this thread veered off in another direction.  Thank you for bringing us
back on track.

Greg Shatan

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

>  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> 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 <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <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> 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> 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
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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/afa08440/attachment.html>