Transcript Building a cctld Support Organisation Developing the ICANN Bylaws Peter Dengate Thrush Montreal, 22 June 2003

Building a cctld Support
Organisation
Developing the ICANN Bylaws
Peter Dengate Thrush
Montreal, 22 June 2003
ICANN
ICANN
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
IRP
President & CEO: Mike Roberts
CHAIR: VINT CERF
November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth Board
3 DNSO
Domain Name
Support Org.
3 PSO
Protocol
Support Org
Names Council (21)
ISPS
Trade Marks
ITU
IETF
ETSI
WWWC
3 ASO
44 ccSO
VB’s
5 @ Large
GAC
Address
Support Org
Address
Council
At Large
Membership
Becky Burr
Bob Shaw
176,837
RIPE
ARIN
APNIC
Christopher
Wilkinson
WIPO
Business
Non-Commercial
Registries
Registrars
Country Code Managers
General Assembly
Others
ICANN -Reform: The ccTLD SO
Saga
• ccTLD meeting November 2000 supports a
ccSO - working group proposed
• DNSO reform begins, Melbourne, March 01
• PDT cc rep on Names Council working
group on Reform
• June 2001 - cc’s announce withdrawal from
DNSO in Stockholm
Presentation by E. Porteneuve at
Montevideo
• ccTLD « Countries Village »
• Reality of the World
• Policy rules are devised locally by
a Local Internet Community
including local government
• Each ccTLD operated under its
national law and jurisdiction
Presentation by E. Porteneuve
at Montevideo
• Rich world of ccTLD (1)
• Various business models
– Private companies, public organizations, governmental
agencies
– Private for profit and private not for profit
– Registries forbidden to act as Registrars or cooperatives
of Registrars and ISPs
– Naming authority inside and outside of Registry
– Loosly contracting with Registrars or developing
accreditation policies
Presentation by E. Porteneuve at
Montevideo
• Rich world of ccTLD (2)
•
•
•
•
Trustee for a Nation
Developing Local Internet Community
Working together with local government
Providing arbitration services for various
disputes
• Following ICANN process and acting as
information center in national language
Presentation by Peter de Blanc at
Montevideo
• The Credibility and Balance
• ICANN needs ccTLD to provide credibility.
• Without ccTLD ICANN is clearly US-centric
• ICANN will attempt to make individual deals with
strong countries one by one.
• In some cases ICANN may succeed with this.
• This could increase “Internet colonialism”
• A strong ccTLD is the key to balance of money,
power, credibility.
Presentation by Peter de Blanc at
Montevideo
• The cart and the horse
• Top down: ICANN decides ccTLD relation:
– ICANN sends down documents to ccTLD
– ICANN creates contract for ccTLD
• Bottom Up: ccTLD creates organizations
– ccTLD agrees on documents- sends to ICANN
– ccTLD agrees on general form of contract
– Individual ccTLD may modify as needed
• Relationship becomes peer-to-peer
• Agreements negotiated by “equals”
Montevideo -September 2001
• Representatives of 60 country code managers met in
Montevideo, Uruguay on September 6 and 7, 2001.
• It will be recalled that in our Stockholm
Communiqué of June 2001, the ccTLD constituency
reported that members there present had
unanimously agreed to form a ccSO and to begin to
work with stakeholders in ICANN on implementing
that decision.Members in Montevideo have
developed a number of key principles that will be
influential in the formation of the ccSO. Subject to
further development, they are;
Montevideo -Principles of an SO
 There is a carefully definable set of global issues which can be
put through the SO to the ICANN policy making process.
 Each ccTLD is solely responsible for it’s decision making
except for that carefully defined list of global issues mentioned
above, when ccTLDs agree to be bound by policies formed
through the ICANN process.
 The ccSO Articles, bylaws and MoU with ICANN, and any
contracts signed between individual ccTLDs and ICANN must
ensure the integrity of the consensus decision making process
including limiting that process to the set of issues, and to those
issues within the ICANN mandate of technical co-ordination of
internet names and numbers.
Montevideo -SO Principles 2
 The purpose of the ccSO is to protect and promote the
common interests of ccTLD managers and their local
internet communities; to give advice to ICANN on
identified global policy issues, within the context of
maintaining global internet stability and
interoperability.
 Mechanisms for maintaining good communications
with the other Support Organisations will be established
Montevideo - SO structure
• The members of the SO shall be individual ccTLD managers.
•
Members shall be able to give their proxies to regional or 'other'
groupings within the SO.
• A member cannot be a voting member of more than one
Regional or 'other' organisation for ccSO purposes
"Border" ccTLDs may choose which ICANN geographic region
they wish to join (self-selection)
Montevideo - SO structure
• There will be a role for Regional associations, and other forms of
association which may develop: initial responsibilities for the
existing regional associations are the running of elections to the
ccSO 'Council', and integral part of any drafting process for
"Policy" recommendations to ICANN;
• There shall be a ccSO Council, composed of three members
elected by each region.
The ccSO council shall be responsible for conducting the election
of ICANN Board members.
ICANN Reform
• February 2002, Stuart Lynn - “Icann is
failing..”
• 2nd Draft Application to form a ccSO
posted
• March 2002 Board forms “Evolution and
reform Committee (“ERC”) in Ghana
• ERC publishes papers leading up to the
“Blueprint” in June 2002
3 seats
elected to
ICANN Board
(March 2002)
International Council
seats:
3 per Region
15 seats:
3 per Region
Chair
elected by Council
Officers: VP’s for Works, L&R,
Secretariat
Membership, F&A
Regional
associations
by contract
Member
ccTLDS
LACTLD
Latin
America
Interface
with other
SO’s
APTLD
Asia Pacific
AFTLD
CENTR
African
European
International Assembly
NATLD
North
America
Policy Development Process : ccSO
June 2002
International Council
(see www.wwtld.org/documents)
GNSO
Vice President, Works
(Policy Development)
International Assembly
An Open List for the
discussion of ccTLD matters,
announcements, Minutes etc
Notice of Policy
Request
Issue List automatically
created by Secretariat/VP
Notified. Specified period.
Implement
as Policy
Rapporteur provides
synthesis
Council reviews
Establish a Working Group
(plus outside Representatives)
Remits for
further work
ICANNICANN
CHAIR: VINT
The Internet Corporation
forCERF
Assigned Names and Numbers
President & CEO: Stuart Lynn
Board seats
2 GNSO
Generic
Support Org
Names Council (16)
ISPS
Registries
Registrars
Non-Commercial
2 ASO
2 CCSO
Address
Support Org
Country code
Support Org
Address
Council
International
Council
(number
unspecified)
RIPE
ARIN
APNIC
LACNIC
tbd
Voting
members
commit to
ICANN policy
development
8 “At Large”
Selected by
the
Nominating
Committee*
5 Liaison
Standing
committees
* Nom Com
g Registries
g Registrars
c Registries
TAC
IAB/IETF
RIR’s
ISP’s
RSSAC
Large business
users
SAC
Small business
users
GAC
IP organisations
Academic/Public
Trade Marks
Business
Others ?
Consumer groups
Individual
Nameholders
IAB/IETF
TAC
GAC
General Assembly
4 unspecified
ERC PROPOSAL - June 2002
The Country Names Council
Unspecified
number of
regionally
Unspecified
number of
regionally
elected
voting
Councillors
elected
voting
Councillors
1/3 of Council by :
- appointments by Nominating
Committee (voting),
- 1 GAC appointee (non-voting)
Recent Events
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
18 September ERC announces ccAG
4 October 1st AG report
22 October AG publishes “ScopeMatrix”
29 October ccTLDs withdraw from DNSO
11 November ccPDP published
10 December Membership paper published
24 December Council paper published
Recent Events
• 28 January Structure paper published
• 24 Feb. APTLD’s AGM response to AG
• 26 Feb. AG Compiled Recommendations
posted.
• 13 March Icann explanations posted
• 25 March ccTLD Rio Resolution adopted
Recent Events
•
•
•
•
22 April ERC 5th report posted
13 May CENTR response posted
16 May APTLD response posted
16 GAC response posted.
APTLD’s response
• “…work should begin on implementation..”
• no Nom. Com appointments to Council
• deferral suggested until more cctld
delegates on Nom. Com.
• Exemptions unless 66%council opposes
APTLD’s response -2
• Separation of SO membership from IANA
services
• Launch group should be geodiverse cctld
appointments
• Members of Launch Group not eligible for
Council* ( .jp and .au disagree)
• APTLD willing to be regional organisation
CENTR’S response
• “ substantially in support of the idea of a
self-determining SO within the ICANN
process”
• needs to be open to all cctld managers
• payments only on an audited,approved
budget
CENTR’S response -2
•
•
•
•
Scope needs further definition
process must be “bottom up”
Board cannot make ccTLD policy
clear separation of IANA operation from
Icann policy forums -the SO’s
CENTR’S response- 3
endorsing the Rio Resolution
•
•
•
•
•
40 not 20 members
joining process -no letter of intent needed
counsel’s opinion not wanted on “value”
no rules as to quorum
assertion of exemption, not request
CENTR’S response- 3
endorsing the Rio Resolution
• One Nom Com delegate not enough
• Launch group should be all willing
managers who wish to help
• Council elections after sufficient members,
not simply 120 days
• no PDP on issues outside the Scope
The GAC response
• General approval ….“sound basis”…well
balanced”… “ provides guarantees”…
• Clarity required for scope
• scope must be limited to stability issues
• Assumption that policy is local -need to
prove its global to involve ICANN
The GAC response- 2
• Consultation with GAC essential
• Delegation and re-delegation is a question
for national governments to decide,
according to local law”
• no managers from “contested” cctlds on
Council
The GAC response-3
• SO staff, including Issues Manager, should
not be Icann employees
• no commitment to global policy
development through Icann should be a
membership requirement
• Current cctld managers should be members,
not necessarily the IANA data base -no vote
where contested
Latest developments
•
•
•
•
•
•
30 May ERC replies to comments
10 June APTLD responds
15 June Centr responds
13 June Draft Bylaws published
18 June Icann explanation published
22 June cctld meeting in Montreal to review
ICANN Bylaws -Mission
• ARTICLE I: MISSION AND CORE VALUES
• Section 1. MISSION
• The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global
Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the
stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.
ICANN Bylaws- Mission
• In particular, ICANN:
– 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of
unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
– a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
– b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system
–
("AS") numbers; and
– c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
– 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name
server system.
– 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately
related to these technical functions.
ICANN Bylaws- Values
• Section 2. CORE VALUES
• In performing its mission, the following core values should guide the
decisions and actions of ICANN:
– 1. Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and
global interoperability of the Internet.
– 2. Respecting the creativity, innovation, and flow of information made possible
by the Internet by limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's
mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination.
– 3. To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination functions to or
recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect the interests
of affected parties.
– 4. Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the
functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of
policy development and decision-making.
ICANN Bylaws - Values
– 5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market
mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.
– 6. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of
domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public
interest.
– 7. Employing open and transparent policy development
mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on
expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can
assist in the policy development process.
– 8. Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally
and objectively, with integrity and fairness.
ICANN Bylaws - Values
• 9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet
while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining informed
input from those entities most affected.
• 10. Remaining accountable to the Internet community through
mechanisms that enhance ICANN's effectiveness.
• 11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that
governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy
and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities'
recommendations.
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• 1. There shall be a ccNSO… for “developing and
recommending to the Board substantive policies
relating to cctlds
• The Recommendations said:
• 1. Develop policy recommendations to the board
• 2.Nuture consensus among the ccNSO community,
and
• 3.Co-ordinating with other SO’s and ICANN
entities
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• 2. The SO shall consist of managers that
agree in writing to belong, and a Council
responsible for managing the Policy
development Process (PDP).
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. The council shall be:
3 from each geographic region = 15
3 appointments by Nom. Com.
18
1 GAC Liaison
19
1 At Large Advisory Liaison
20
5 Regional cctld org’s Liaison
25
Plus ASO and DNSO observers
27
Bucharest, Shanghai and Rio resolutions
oppose “intellectual property” proposal
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• Councillors term -3 years (staggered)
• Removal for non attendance (3 meetings)
or “inappropriate behaviour” -66% council
vote.
• Manage annual meeting and PDP
• Elect 2 members to the ICANN board by
majority affirmative vote
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• Not less than 4 open* meetings ( can be
online) each year, including an Annual
Meeting, one with the Board or other
ICANN SO
• Council to determine rules for membership
and for operating procedures
• Membership:those managers in “sponsoring
organisation” field of IANA d/b
• *Council can choose to go into “closed” meeting in special cases
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• Membership application on a form designed
by Council, members commit to:
• recognise the role of the ccNSO in ICANN
• adhere to membership rules
• abide by policies adopted by the board
• pay ccNSO membership fees set by Council
• Members may resign
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• Access to or registration in the IANA database is
not conditional on membership of the ccNSO
• Membership of the SO is independent of
existence (or absence ) of any contractual
relationship between a cctld and ICANN
• Members are in the “Geographic Regions”
defined in ICANN bylaws
• Managers can appoint a person, organisation or
entity to represent them in the SO
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• Policies that are adopted by the Board after
a ccPDP are binding on members for the
duration of their membership of the SO.
• No PDP is binding in the face of contrary
national law
• Exemptions will be granted on grounds that
policy is contrary to custom, religion or
domestic national policy, unless 66% of
Council opposes
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• Council will designate regional cctld
organisations by 66% vote.
• Council may use ICANN staff, or fund the
employment of its own.
• ICANN will provide admin. and operational
support for the SO, on request but excluding
travel funding
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• Policy shall be developed using the PDP
• Changes to the PDP need to go through the PDP and
be approved by the Board.
• The scope of the PDP is not finalised, but is to be
defined by a PDP and approved by the board. That
PDP is to be based on the principles and method of
analysis described in the Framework for the Scope
of the ccNSO.
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• The Framework is the written description of the
Scope Matrix, and forms Appendix C to the Bylaws.
• It is designed to assist in “delineating relevant
global policy issues” in the “complex relation
between ICANN and cctld managers/registries with
regard to policy issues”
• Scope “cannot be established without reaching a
common understanding of the allocation of authority
between Icann and ccTLD registries.”
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• The Framework defines 2 “core functions”
a Data Entry Function (DEF) and a Name
Server Function” (NSF).
• For each of those, it identifies a policy
making role, an executive role in carrying
out the policy, and an accountability role,
for whom the policy is made and by whom
approval is required.
ICANN Bylaws -ccNSO
• “Policy role” means the ability and power
to define policy.
• “Executive role” means the ability and
power to act upon and implement the policy
• “Accountability” means the ability and
power to hold the responsible entity
accountable for exercising its power
ICANN Bylaws
• In the NSF, for the cctld name servers,
• Policy role lies with the ccNSO-PDP
• The executive role is held by the cctld
manager.
• Accountability is to “part ICANN (IANA),
part Local Internet Community, including
local government”
A reminder: The ccTLD Proposal of March 2002
3 seats
elected to
ICANN Board
International Council
15 seats:
3 per Region
Chair
elected by Council
Officers: VP’s for Works, L&R,
Secretariat
Membership, F&A
Regional
associations
by contract
Member
ccTLDS
LACTLD
Latin
America
Interface
with other
SO’s
APTLD
Asia Pacific
AFTLD
CENTR
African
European
International Assembly
NATLD
North
America
The Structure in the Bylaws Now Proposed
2 (not 3)
seats on
ICANN Board
International Council
18 15
(15)
seats: 3 3
per
5 Regions
seats:
per
Region
PLUS 3 “appointments”
Now has up to 7 observers
Officers: VP’s for Works, L&R,
Secretariat:
Can provide own
staff
Membership, F&A
(Regional
associations
by contract)
Member
ccTLDS
LACTLD
Latin
America
Can
exchange
observers
APTLD
Asia Pacific
AFTLD
CENTR
African
European
NATLD
North
America
Policy Develoment Process
If within “scope” Board cannot amend
What has been achieved?
• A Support Organisation for cctlds in
ICANN
• with a structure substantially similar to that
proposed by the cctlds
• with a Policy Development Process that
ensures policy affecting cctlds is made in
the SO, not by the Board
Possible Timetable
• Board adopts bylaws next week
• Week 1: ERC appoints launching group
(“ccLG”)
• Week 3:ccLG develops application form,
and election protocol and schedule.
• Week 5: Appoints election officers in
Regional Associations
Possible Timetable 2
• Week 10-12 Membership applications
reach 30 members, 4 per region
• Week 15-17 Council elections
• Week 18 : First Council meets in Tunisia.
• ccLG disbands, Council begins work
Likely Early Work
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rules for changing cctld managers
Rules for other updates of IANA database
ccTLD-Icann contracts
Best Practices for cctld registries
Re-negotiating GAC Principles
Outreach to cctlds
Election of 2 members of ICANN board
What issues remain which
prevent cctlds joining the SO?
•
•
•
•
The 3 Nom. Com. Appointments?
Options include:
(1) oppose appointments
(2) defer until cctld has 3 delegates on the
Nom Com.
• (3)Agree to function with appointees until
review
What issues remain which
prevent cctlds joining the SO?
• There is no defined scope to the power of
the SO. Options include:
• (1) Expressly limiting the scope to the terms
of the Framework (Scope Matrix).
• (2)Expressly including a defined but wider
scope, so that all decisions affecting cctlds
in ICANN are made by the SO
• (3) Allowing the board, in a first PDP, the
power to set the scope.
What issues remain which
prevent cctlds joining the SO?
• Definition of geographic Regions?
• 40 members, not 30?
• 66% vote in every region, not simply 66%
of votes cast?
• Quorum?
• No PDP on issues outside Scope?
• Counsels opinion on “value?
What issues remain which
prevent cctlds joining the SO?
• Open enough access for all members?
• Role of managers in “contested”
management?
• No undertaking to abide policies on signing
up -if that means a cctld must get domestic
policies in line before signup, and, or, it
means a member may not challenge past
policies
What should we do now ?
• Negotiate some or all of the preceding as
preconditions to sign up?
• What is the effect of new Board members?
• What is the effect of the ITU….WSIS?
• Will delay encourage other cctlds to sign ?
• Will the ERC negotiate….why?
What should we do now ?
• Sign up now, and hope to make changes
from the inside?
• Will amendment be possible?
• What is the effect on your LIC if changes
cannot be made?
• Might time reveal a different view on some
changes which now seem imoportant?
Final thought
• “.. that this version of the SO will not be the
last as amendments can be made as
experience by the parties gained from
operation of the first version of the SO,
and trust developed between the parties
leads on to improved structures and
processes in the future..”
• (extract from the Rio resolution)