Interesting email from Lesley Cowley...

Edwin · Sep 17, 2013

This is what she sent to an ICANN discussion group on 13 September 2012:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/cowley-to-de-la-chapelle-13sep12-en.pdf

From: Lesley Cowley <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:47:00 -0700
To: Bertrand de La Chapelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Bart Boswinkel <[email protected]>
Subject: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure"

Hi Bertrand,

Further to your email of 3rd August, please find below the input from
the ccNSO Council:

1. The impact of new gTLDs on the ICANN structure is primarily a matter
for the GNSO. The ccNSO Council asserts that the new gTLD process should
not be used to change the structure and composition of ICANN generally,
including the Board and other SO and AC’s. For that matter, the ccNSO
Council does not have a specific view on a renewed ICANN structure.

2. The ccNSO Council is aware that some organisations that operate a
ccTLD are also engaged in applications for new gTLDs. The ccNSO Council
also notes that some organisations currently operate gTLD’s also operate
ccTLD’s, furthermore some of these are members of the ccNSO, or at least
participate in ccNSO activities. The ccNSO Council believes that the new
gTLD process and its impact must not be used to as a means to blur the
distinction between ccTLD’s and gTLD’s nor to introduce special additional
requirements for organisations who currently operate a ccTLD and will be
involved in a new gTLD. To date, experience in the ccNSO has shown that
organisations can participate in both supporting organisations, without
causing an adverse impact.

3. The ccNSO Council anticipates that as a result of the new gTLD process
the overall workload of the ICANN community will increase. In order to
avoid an imbalance between capacity and workload, either at the level of
individual SO or AC, ICANN staff or overall ICANN as a whole, we advise that
appropriate measures be put in place, including necessary adjustment of
processes and prioritization mechanisms, and involve the communities in
developing these measures.

4. The issues of operators jointly engaged in ccTLD and gTLD operations
may give rise to greater conflicts of interest than currently exist, and both
the gNSO and ccNSO should review their methodologies for dealing with
conflicts of interest, and statements of interest from their respective
Council members to ensure the complexities arising in the future will
enable ongoing decisions to be made in an open and transparent manner.

Kind Regards,

Lesley

Lesley Cowley
Chair of the ccNSO

The paragraph numbered "2" (my emphasis) is especially enlightening, given Nominet's use of the 1,000 new GTLDs as an excuse for .uk, and Nominet's attempt to make .uk sound gTLD-like when it comes to matters such as the proposed price point for the new domains.

Stephen · Sep 17, 2013

glimpse behind the scene

Thanks for posting.

It is interesting to obtain a glimpse behind the scene of the politics that is going on, that effects .uk.

I wonder if we will ever see the pressure on Nominet in introducing name verification and UK address for service by other bodies, or was it all Nominet's idea?

Edwin · Sep 17, 2013

Sorry, as somebody pointed out, this was sent last year not this year. So the irony is even more biting, since it was just a couple of weeks before the V1 consultation bombshell.