[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]

Comment ccNSOAG6:
  • To: reform-comments@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comment ccNSOAG6:
  • From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:23:37 -0500
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3

This comment is submitted on behalf of the GNSO Intellectual Property 
Interests Constituency by its Executive Vice President, Steve Metalitz. 
It is also attached in Word format.

The Intellectual Property Constituency appreciates the opportunity to 
comment on the ccNSO Assistance Group's "Preliminary Recommendation on 
ccNSO Council" 

In the comments filed by the IPC last month on the preceding Preliminary 
Recommendation of the ccNSO AG, we stated:

"IPC believes that a critical aspect of the Blueprint for Reform 
(http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm) was 
the decision to allocate "several" seats on the ccNSO Council for 
appointment by the Nominating Committee "in accordance with the criteria 
used to select Directors, but with emphasis on particular individuals 
who have a demonstrated interest in global names policy." We believe 
that these appointees will have a special responsibility for 
representing the interests of users of ccTLD services and others 
affected by their decisions, including intellectual property interests. 
In this regard, we look forward to reviewing the ccNSO Assistance 
Group's recommendations --"within the framework of the Blueprint," see 
the AG's charter at 
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/status-report-17sep02.htm -- 
regarding the ccNSO Council."
Now that we have reviewed the Preliminary Recommendation on the ccNSO 
Council, we are concerned about the following parenthetical statement in 
it: "[The PDP is being amended so that a final recommendation goes to 
member vote (and members are ccTLD managers only).]" Such an amendment 
would, in effect, divest the ccNSO Council of the authority to formulate 
and decide upon policy recommendations to the ICANN Board, and bestow 
that authority on the ccNSO membership. The result would be to eliminate 
the voice (or the vote) of anyone other than a ccTLD manager in making 
these fundamental decisions.
In the view of the IPC, this amendment would be inconsistent with what 
we believe to be a "critical aspect" of the Blueprint for Reform. Its 
adoption would call into question whether the ccNSO AG is operating 
"within the framework of the Blueprint." And it would negate the value 
of the public comment period previously provided on the AG's 
"Preliminary Recommendation on Policy-Development Process," 
We reiterate that another critical aspect of the Blueprint is the 
recommendation that the ccNSO should not be a mere trade association, 
but a forum wherein the voices of all the parties involved in the DNS 
could be heard and discussed. This fundamental goal of the ccNSO can be 
achieved by creating mechanisms that ensure the exchange of points of 
views and ideas with parties other than ccTLD registries. Eliminating 
all but ccTLD Managers from the final decisionmaking role on policy 
issues within the ccNSO would undermine this goal.

For the reasons stated above, we urge the ccNSO AG not to amend the 
previously recommended Policy Development Process in the manner described.

In addition, the Preliminary Recommendation on ccNSO Council should be 
supplemented to reflect the fact that not all of the Council's members 
are to be elected by ccTLD managers. For instance, provision should be 
made for the filling of vacancies among the group of ccNSO Council 
members appointed by the Nominating Committee.

Finally, the AG should consider whether placing only three non-ccTLD 
managers on the ccNSO Council will be sufficient to produce the range of 
views and expertise that will optimally assist the ccNSO Council in its 
deliberations. The Blueprint calls for "several" such Council members. 
IPC urges the AG to recommend an increase in the number of Nominating 
Committee appointees on the ccNSO Council to six.

Thank you for considering the views of the IPC.

Attachment: ipc.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy