Transcript Perfecting the ccTLD Support Organization Strengthening the ccNSO and ICANN bylaws A Reminder:Why an ICANN SO? ICANN is built on White Paper assumptions: • there should.

Perfecting the ccTLD Support
Organization
Strengthening the ccNSO and
ICANN bylaws
A Reminder:Why an ICANN
SO?
ICANN is built on White Paper assumptions:
• there should be a global body, using
transparent, bottom up processes to ensure
private sector leadership of coordination of
internet resources
• including assignment of domain names,
which includes “redelegation” of cctld
managers
A Reminder:Why an ICANN
SO?
• If we don’t accept those White Paper
principles - leave now
• If we do, ICANN is here to be shaped to our
needs
• “we are ICANN” or we can be….
• The opportunity that best fits our needs is a
Support Organisation - the Policy Engines
of ICANN
A Reminder:Why an ICANN
SO?
• What is that we want?
• What are the benefits to my LIC?
• What are the threats I need to be wary of?
A . A secure contract for continued IANA
service ( supply, plus liability hand-off)
B . Control of the policy over entries in the
IANA cctld database ( redelegation safety)
A Reminder:Why an ICANN
SO?
2 Primary relationships to be considered:
• With IANA ( contracted to ICANN)
• With the rest of the net community over
“interoperability” issues
3 strong themes:
• “lightweight organisation”;
• funding support for IANA function;
• benefits of group Best Practice development
A.The individual ccTLD contract
Essential term will be: willingness of cctld to
abide by community-based consensus on
limited global interoperability issues;
• Where is that community to be found?
• By what process is consensus to be
reached?
• Who is to judge consensus has been reached
Answer: the ccNSO
A.The SO and the ccTLD
contract with ICANN
• We want the answers to be developed in a
place where we are “in control” - the
dominant if not only players.
• Other than 3 “extra” councillors, the cctlds
control the ccNSO.
• We want the process to be under the ccTLD
control - the PDP is. ( The board cannot remake ccTLD policy )
B.Controlling the cctld IANA
database
• We want IANA to carry out our directions
on “routine” changes
• We want re-delegation issues decided by
national law
• Where is the policy on these matters
currently made?
NOT BY CCTLDS
B.Controlling the cctld IANA
database
• What has happened is a set of so called
Principles from the GAC have driven recent
re-delegations.
• ccTLD are in danger from those principles
being amended to strengthen the role of
Governments;
• RFC 1591 will be displaced
• Private sector leadership will be replaced
B.Controlling the cctld IANA
database
An astounding victory has been achieved:
• The ICANN bylaws have already been
amended to pass control over IANA policy
to the ccNSO:
• Data Entry Function (as to ccTLDs)
– Level 1: Root Level Registry
Policy role: ccNSO Policy Development Process
(ICANN)
Executive role: ICANN (IANA)
Accountability role: ICANN community, ccTLD Managers, US
DoC, (national authorities in some cases)
B.Controlling the cctld IANA
database
Are we able to make the policy alone?
• Policy made in the SO goes to the board,
which can accept it, or remit it.
• And, all ICANN policy is subject to public
notice, and a powerful GAC role
• BUT its up to the board.
• The board can refuse to follow GAC advice
Are there alternatives to an SO?
APTLD suggested in Taipei that we form an
“outside” organisation, which contracted to
provide ICANN with an SO
• the RIR model
• Proposed but not endorsed in Montevideo
• Effectively abandoned at Accra
• one body, 2 jobs= too confusing
Are there alternatives to an SO?
It has been suggested ccTLDs plus others
could successfully bid to operate cc-IANA
• no real work presented to date
• no real prospect USG would accept after
9/11
• Likely to be opposed by Govts, including
GAC
Are there alternatives to an SO?
Can we wait to explore alternatives?
• Many think that WSIS, ITU and other
proposals are likely to destabilise, be
contentious and time consuming….
• None of them permits a major role for cctld
managers
• None is based on private sector, self
regulation…..
Meanwhile, progress on the SO
• With the June 02 Blueprint accepting an
SO, work went into design, scope, power,
membership, etc of the SO.
• Principles and Bylaws have been revised
and debated in Rio, and in Montreal.
• A launching group was assembled, appl’ns
for membership approved
• 4 of 5 regions are now represented in SO
Do the Bylaws meet our needs?
Unarguable that bylaws were rushed in
Montreal:
• some there did not fully comprehend them
• many cctld managers were not there
Closer analysis since Montreal reveals areas
where greater clarity is required.
Some inconsistencies have emerged.
Do the bylaws meet our needs?
• Valuable debate on the cctld lists
• Some areas where there clearly are different
interpretations, so clarity is desirable.
• Amendment needs to go through a board
process - can be done at monthly telephone
meeting
• Presentation from Stephan Welzel to follow