Selama ini saya forwardkan email2 seperti ini ke Kominfo.
Apakah sebaiknya diforward ke milis cctld saja? Atau tetap ke Kominfo?
Mohon advis.
-- budi
----- Forwarded message from joel disini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:55:50 +0800
To: 'Eva Frölich' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: joel disini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Bart Vastenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] [ccnso-members] REMINDER - Budget Fee
"Bart Vastenburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>-1- Re: Ensuring Stability and Security of the DNS
It would make more sense for ICANN to elaborate on how it intends to spend
R&D money on improving the security/stability of the DNS, before asking us
to fund this. It might make more sense for the ccTLDs to fund such R&D
directly.
>
>-2- Re: IANA 24 x 7 service.
>
I agree with Randy; 1 week service is adequate. It can even be
outsourced, if necessary.
>
>-3- Re: deployment of DNSSEC
>Only if this relates to deployment of DNSsec in the root for all.
>Contributions for deployment of DNSsec for (specific) gTLDs is not a
>ccTLD-matter.
As with #1, ICANN needs to elaborate on how it wants to spend money on
DNSSec research before asking us to fund this. It may make more sense for
ccTLDs to fund the R&D directly.
>
>-4- Re: IDN.IDN
>
IDN.IDN is mostly dead. Today, the market prefers to purchase google
Adwords (in Chinese, for example) rather than register Chinese IDN
domains. If we're not careful and ICANN's starts applying a progressively
larger domain tax on gTLDs and ccTLDs, we might soon see the market
preferring to register Google keywords, rather than Domain Names. It's in
our interest to make sure that ICANN's budget doesn't spiral out of
control.
>
>
>-6- Re: Policy Development Support
>Most policy staff is involved in gTLD-specific issues, which are of little
>concern to the ccTLD community. I would be relucted to accept an overall
>proportion of all these types of costs. I would rather try to:
>(i) specify the cost specifically related to ccTLD-related support;
>(ii) not cover specific policy support for gTLDs, RIRs, ALAC and GAC;
>and
>(iii) cover a reasonable (i.e. very limited) proportion of ICANN's general
>overhead.
My understanding is that ccNSO develops policy, and the ICANN board
approves or vetoes this policy. Any ccTLD contributions should be limited
to these expenses incurred in this exercise - remuneration to board
members, telephone & meeting expenses, travel (if necessary).
>
>
>-8- Re: Dedicated Staff, Secretariat and Support
>Only as far as this is related to the ccNSO - and (obviously!) only for
>the
>ccNSO-members.
agreed
>
>-9- Re: Legal Advice & Support
>In principle this is an internal supporting function (i.e. overhead), and
>not an external function which is available for ccTLD's to use at their
>leisure.
agreed. especially since most of the legal advice may concern
Verisign-related issues.
>
>
>
>-11- Re: Promotion of Competition in the DNS
>This is really a matter which relates almost exclusively to the
>gTLD-space
>and the (North) American continent :) This aspect contributes very little
>to nothing to the ccTLD community.
>
agreed.
>
>
>-12- Re: Ensuring Global Stakeholder Participation
>This, again, is a matter which relates little to the ccTLD-space. Outreach
>to the local Internet community is mostly done by local ccTLDs on their
>own
>merits and at their own respective costs. Also, the regional organisations
>such as CENTR do have a significant role in this. The role ICANN describes
>is more related to gTLD-activities world-wide and is of lesser concern or
>benefit to the ccTLD community.
agreed
>
>-13- Re: Allocation Calculation
>If ccTLDs were to significantly contribute to the ICANN budget, it would
>in
>turn be only fair if it is clear what contribution would look like on the
>(mid) long term not just one fiscal year, and what the spending
>priorities
>look like in the long run. One would expect ICANN to relate its spending
>to
>the contributions it receives. I would like to see ICANN commit itself to
>such a correlation.
We should steer clear of committing to pay a % of the ICANN budget, and
just agree to pay ICANN for its ccTLD-related expenses, which seem
completely limited to IANA operating expenses and ICANN's role in the
ccNSO policy development process.
- Joel
.PH
----- End forwarded message -----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untuk unsubscribe: kirim e-mail ke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dengan Subject: unsubscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
