ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

My "me" comments

  • To: items-ccnso-report@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: My "me" comments
  • From: Olivier Guillard <orglube@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:46:32 +0200

Hi there,

that's neat to have this opportunity to provide input on this
report about the organisational review of the ccNSO.

Since :

        - I sat in the ccNSO council beetween june 2004 and
          january 2009.

        - I also chaired the IANA working group between
          2006 and 2008.

May be a short comment with this little background experience
could be of interest to this process.

Note that this is an individual comment, may I add that since
I'm not paid to express my view, one could consider this input
as beeing "independant".

I went through the document, and although I found a lot of
interesting issues adressed, I was a bit surprised not to see
anything in the recommendation about "IANA" and very fiew
about "INTERNAL ccNSO Working Groups" :

I.   IANA :

Whereas the report appropriatly highlights :

Page 49 :
Major Western  European country made comments [in the past]
about the : " Problem with quality of some IANA services"

Page 85 :
Governmental registries ... expressed their  concerns about
... ccNSO
"We believe that the current scope, as written in the bylaws,
is too wide and should be limited to making policies for the
IANA function as it relates to ccTLDs."

Page 107 :
"IANA function services for country code registries"

is one of the 5 activities in which the ccNSO is identified
as an area to be engaged in.

Considering :

The  role that the ccNSO has played in
supporting IANA to provide a better service to ccs, and

specific contributions to facilitate the deployment of
better IANA services (more automation, DNSsec, etc.).

Both widely recognized


I would have expected the important IANA aspect to be
at least mentioned in the recommaendations (if not more).


Whereas :

Page 35 :
"The way Working Groups are set up and operate is described in the
ccNSO’s -Rules and
guidelines- booklet. This document was adopted on 25th June 2008."

Page 35 :
"Each working group formally defines its scope and internal mechanism.

Page 36 :
"The Working Group method is generally considered to be an appropriate
and effective
mechanism for conducting ccNSO’s mandate."

Page 36 :
"Some are of the opinion that an organisational shift in favour of the
Working Group model
instead of the PDP is desirable. "

Considering that :

Working Groups are a good way to work in little multicultural teams,
they are focused
understandable topics of interests, and they enjoy a certain autonomy
to implement
working methods, publish their working plans and reports.

Considering that :

being focused on specific topics, Internal Working Groups  facilitate
as well as help to coordinate schedules, and help to record opinions
of people that
wouldn't express their views in wider contexts

Therefore :

I beleive that Internal ccNSO Working Groups is a powerfull model to strengthen
collaboration and to facilitate consensus building process :
I would have expect this model to be more highlited in the recommendations.

Conclusion :

This is my contribution, may I add one thing about this recommendation :

"Recommendation 9 : Introduce a limit to the number of terms that can be
served by ccNSO Council members (item tabled for discussion at ccNSO
meeting in Brussels). "

Although that was fun to serve the community as a ccNSO councillor over
6 years, I personally have considered that two terms were enough.

But considering that we are talking about a community that count at most 200
ccs, is their really a need to regulate the number of mandates in the marber ?

Hope this contribution will help,

Best to all,

Olivier Guillard
Former ccNSO councillor

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy