Hi Stephen,

 

I fully support your latest definition.

 

Best,

 

Giovanni

 

 

 

Hi Nick.

 

To answer your specific question: I absolutely take issue with that definition. 

 

The intent in the run-up to the ccNSO being formed in 2003 was for:

  (a) policy applicability to be limited to those ccTLDs who elect to join the ccNSO and be bound by any ccNSO developed policies,

  (b) a recognized means for ccTLDs to withdraw their membership from the ccNSO for any reason,  and

  (c) availability of IANA services for ANY ccTLD unconditionally of their ccNSO membership status.

 

For those Council members wishing to dive into the source materials generated at that  time I refer you to  https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/montreal/ccnso-organization-topic.htm.

 

 

There were valid reasons that the ccTLDs walked away from the DNSO.  It simply wasn’t working for ccTLDs.  And I think it’s also important to keep in mind the very bad blood that was spawned between ICANN and the ccTLDs in early/mid 2002 when KPNQuest went bankrupt and the continued operation of one of their name servers, used at the time by many ccTLDs as a secondary DNS service, was cast into doubt.

 

As many ccTLDs scrambled to submit root zone entry changes to remove this name server from their root zone entries, ICANN/IANA’s response was basically, “we won’t make the change unless/until you permit the IANA to download your zone files on a regular basis via an AXFR request.”  The situation was aptly captured at the time via a CENTR Comment, which is available at http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/20020625.ICANN-AXFR-KimDavies.html.

 

This was (and remains) in my mind nothing short of a flat-out extortion attempt.   It represents the darkest period of the relationship between ICANN and the ccTLD Community.  It remains an uncontested example of ICANN violating its core responsibilities per it’s mission statement,  for its own benefit over that of the global Internet community.  To their credit, they did back down at the end of the day, but for those of us who were affected by ICANN’s actions at the time, there is lingering scar tissue.

 

So with regards to the proposed Glossary entry, I think it is critical that it encompasses the concept that any ccNSO Policy adopted by the Board is clear with respect to the limitation of the applicability of that policy –limited to ccNSO ccTLD members.

 

I think at the end of the day that Giovanni’s language and my language is pretty close.  Here is my proposed alterations to Giovanni’s text and mine (where bold italics is new language, and underscored text is to be deleted.):

 

[---START---] 

One of three Supporting Organizations in the ICANN community. The ccNSO develops a limited set of policies relating to country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) in some areas. Its membership consists of ccTLD managers. The ccNSO works together with the various ICANN constituencies and stakeholders on matters of common interest.

[---END---]

 

Thus Giovanni ‘s revised text would read as follows:

 

[---START---]

One of three Supporting Organizations in the ICANN community.  The ccNSO develops a limited set of policies relating to country code top-level domains (ccTLDs).  Its membership consists of ccTLD managers.  The ccNSO works together with the various ICANN constituencies and stakeholders on matters of common interest.

[---END---]

 

I submit this revision of Giovanni’s language for the Council’s consideration.

 

Best Regards,

 

/Stephen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Stephen

 

Presumably you’d also take issue with the definition they already have for the ccNSO Council then??

 

The council that administers the affairs of the Country Code Names Supporting Organizationand manages the development of policy recommendations for country code top-level domains.

 

Seems to me that these definitions need to be read in conjunction with each other.

 

Best wishes

Nick

 

 

Katrina and fellow Council members,

 

This proposed definition from ICANN staff is defective on several levels.  Below is a proposed alternative definition for consideration:

 

The ccNSO is one of three Supporting Organizations in the ICANN community.

Through the ccNSO, ccTLD Managers work together with each other and within ICANN with other stakeholders and communities.

The ccNSO develops a limited set of global policies applicable to its members who are country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) Managers.

 

Any definition of the ccNSO must in my view explicitly proscribe the applicability of ccNSO policy.

 

Best Regards,

/Stephen

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Please see the proposed definition of the ccNSO below: any comments/edits/suggestions?

 

Thank you,

 

]{atrina

 

 

 

Dear Katrina,

 

As part of the ongoing Information Transparency Initiative (ITI), we are updating the ICANN acronyms and terms feature on icann.org. Our goal is to provide simple and consistent definitions for the community, including non-native English speakers and newcomers. 

 

We propose the following definition for the ccNSO. Please let us know by Tuesday, 16 April if we can proceed with the following definition, or if you have any minor changes to suggest:

One of three Supporting Organizations in the ICANN community. The ccNSO develops global policies relating to country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). Its membership consists of ccTLD managers. Through the ccNSO, ccTLD managers work together within ICANN with other stakeholders and communities.

 

The ccNSO Council manages the policy development process relating to ccTLDs.

 

We will also include a link to your community’s website, so that a user can learn additional information about your group.

 

 

Thank you in advance, and we look forward to your feedback.

 

Kind regards,


Chantelle

__________