[Chapter-delegates] ccTLD management

Sun May 12 11:00:59 PDT 2013

Carlos,

that is one possible example. In the case of ISOC there are important safeguards so that ISOC can continue to contribute to Internet policy while having more than an arms-length relationship with that part of its funding. 

As you may know, ISOC has to fulfill for fiscal purposes several requisites in its funding. The toughest one is that no more than a certain fraction of its income can come from a single source, so numerous other contributions are in place and actively sought. All this is pretty well known and your rhetorical questsion is a great opportunity to repeat this information for newcomers. 

It does beg the following question now, for comparison and better understanding: how are the organizations your heart is with, APC and NUPEF, funded? what is the Brazilian government's direct and indirect funding for NUPEF and what safeguards does NUPEF have in place to keep its opinion independent from its funders? Is there a bridge there to CGI funding, given that CGI, on whose Board you sit or have sat, is also the ccTLD manager? would you comment on the relationship between the organizations you belong to - ISOC Brazil - and the ccTLD manager= 

That is the original question Elver expected to see answered. 

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________________
Desde: Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca]
Enviado el: domingo, 12 de mayo de 2013 12:32
Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
CC: Grigori Saghyan; chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org; elver.loho at gmail.com
Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ccTLD management

You mean like .org income being part of ISOC's budget?

--c.a.

On 05/12/2013 02:30 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
> Grigori,
>
> do the funds accrued by domain-name registrations under .am become part of ISOC.AM's budget?
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>       Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> ________________________________________
> Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Grigori Saghyan [gregor at arminco.com]
> Enviado el: domingo, 12 de mayo de 2013 10:53
> Hasta: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org; elver.loho at gmail.com
> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ccTLD management
>
> Dear Elver,
> In Armenia .am ccTLD manager  is the "Internet Society" NGO, or in short
> form- ISOC.AM. (At the same time this NGO is ISOC Armenian Chapter).
>
> Practically all Armenian ISPs and registrars have their representatives
> in ISOC.AM as members.  ISOC.AM had founded in 2000 a commercial
> structure, 100 % of shares of this commercial structure belong to
> ISOC.AM, the name of this structure is "Internet Technology Center" -
> ITC. This was done because there is a difference in taxation for NGOs
> and commercial structures. All registrars, as commercial structures,
> have their agreements with  ITC, not with ISOC.AM directly.
>
> As a ccTLD manager ISOC.AM had only one clime from one registrar in
> 2007,  when this registrar applied to Armenian Anti-Monopoly commission
> with complaint on pricing policy. As a result, Anti-Monopoly Commission
> recognized ITC as a monopolist, which is reasonable - today there is
> only one .am ccTLD.
>
> ITC now is under Anti-Monopoly Commission regulation,   have  to
> substantiate domain registration fees, have to  provide
> non-discriminatory policy, prepare reports for the Commission, etc.
>
> But at the same time ITC is under control of ISOC.AM - as a subsidiary.
> All problems possible to discuss inside ISOC.AM, in worst case, if it
> will be impossible to have balanced solution inside ISOC.AM, one  can
> apply to Anti-Monopoly Commission.
>
> Grigori Saghyan
> ISOC.AM
>
>
>
>
> On 12.05.2013 8:47, Elver Loho wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Quick question: what role does your chapter play in the management of your country's specific top level domain?
>>
>> I'm wondering, because we occasionally have some disagreement with the .ee manager, but other than being able to talk to them, we have no say in things. Is this the case elsewhere as well?
>>
>> Best,
>> Elver
>> .ee chapter
>>
>> elver.loho at gmail.com
>> +372 5661 6933
>> skype: elver.loho
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Grigori Saghyan
> PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>