<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">On Tuesday, 2 September 2014, Brian E Carpenter <<a href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto;">
Jordan,<br>...<br>What is preventing you from creating an independent forum?<br>(I am not being rhetorical, it's a genuine question.)<br>
If an independent forum existed, it could negotiate with<br>ICANN as others have done.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>I agree that is an option, but the problem I see with it relates to the fact that ICANN already gathers all the key players with an interest in ccTLD matters (which is a broader set than those that make policy on these, per se): governments, ccTLD operators, users, registrars to some degree. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Jordan - </div><div><br></div>I will observe that the "Address Supporting Organization" is a component of the ICANN ecosystem, </div><div>but is in fact an independent organization (the Number Resource Organization). "The NRO shall </div><div>fulfill the role, responsibilities and functions of the ASO as defined within the ICANN Bylaws ..."</div><div><br></div><div>This serves as clear proof of concept that you can establish an independent forum, with its own</div><div>secretariat and financials, and still serve as a fully functional component of the ICANN system.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>It would seem unlikely that you'd be able to get buy-in for "another ICANN" to be created. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>See above - organizing an independent DNS supporting organization is not "another ICANN";</div><div>it would simply provide organizational/structural independence while still serving within the</div><div>ICANN framework.</div><div><br></div><div>I have no idea if such an approach would actually be prudent at this point; that is something</div><div>that should be considered by folks in the relevant community. It is fairly clear, however, that </div><div>having a distinct identity would quickly lead to clarity in roles...</div><div><br></div><div>FYI,</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: my views alone.</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>