Review of CENTRs dialogue with the GAC

1
Review of CENTRs dialogue with the GAC

• Emily Taylor, Solicitor
• Company Secretary, Nominet UK

2
Session plan

• Recap on progress to date
• Review of common ground and outstanding issues
• CENTRs comments on December draft
• Comments on February discussion draft
• What happens next?

3
Progress to date

• 1 December 2003 GAC circulates discussion draft
  for comment
• 16 December 2003 Meeting between European GAC
  representatives and CENTR, Brussels
• 16 January 2004 CENTRs response to draft
• 13 February 2004 GAC circulates revised draft
• 20 February 2004 CENTR GA, discussion with
  Martin Boyle

4
Common Ground

• Common interest in a stable, efficient IANA
  function
• The existing GAC Principles are unsatisfactory
• Lack of consultation
• Subsidiarity ccTLD issues to be resolved at
  local level where possible

5
What are the GAC Principles for?

• Not a replacement for national legislation
• Not binding rules
• Not a contract
• A non-binding, best practice framework?
• A dialogue between equals?

6
The December draft CENTR members comments
7
Overview

• Draft a significant improvement on the current
  GAC Principles
• Appreciate the opportunity to contribute to an
  improved framework

8
Overview (II)

• Outstanding concerns
• Clarify the purpose of the document throughout.
• Consider use that has been made of current GAC
  Principles
• Distinguish ICANN and IANA functions
• Strive for minimum necessary, lowest common
  denominator approach

9
General comments

• Suggest a review of structure, title and purpose
  in light of changed objectives.
• Key issues for the document to address
• Limited role for ICANN re ccTLDs
• ccTLDs administered out of territory
• Efficient performance of IANA function

10
General comments (II)

• Terminology delegation re-delegation
• Diversity of ccTLDs
• Tight regulation by governments neither possible
  nor desirable

11
Summary of detailed comments

• Whole of section 7 as drafted
• Section 10 ICANNs function, and ccTLDs
  contribution to funds
• Broader function than in current GAC Principles
  (eg data escrow)
• Contractual terms between ICANN and ccTLD
  Registry at section 9
• Section 5 meaning and implications of public
  resource

12
Summary of detailed comments (II)

• Role of ccTLD (section 4)
• Duty to serve global Internet community?
• Prohibition on sub-contracting
• Prohibition on assertion of IPRs
• ccNSO

13
The February 2004 draft
14
Overall comments

• Positive progress
• Many of CENTRs comments accepted or
  acknowledged, in particular
• Replacement of section 7
• Improvements to section 10
• Focussing on the costs of administering the IANA
  function
• Removal of data escrow requirement

15
Open issues

• Terminology and title
• Government/ccTLD relationship
• IANA function
• ccNSO
• Public right, public duty, and internet identity

16
Terminology and Title

• Section 3 of discussion draft
• paragraphs 10, 14, 27-29 of CENTR response
• Title at odds with non-binding, best practice
  guidelines
• Delegation, re-delegation, designation
• Not mere pedantry
• At odds with what happens
• Implication of authority

17
Government/ccTLD relationship

• Section 9 of discussion draft
• Paragraphs 58 65 of CENTRs response
• What is the significance of newly designated?
• Inclusion of performance clauses, opportunity
  for review, process for revocation
  prescriptive?
• Commitment to global internet community?
• Intellectual property rights in the country code
  itself?
• Prohibition on sub-contracting?

18
IANA function

• Section 10 of discussion draft
• Paragraphs 27, 66-78 of CENTRs response
• Two distinct functions
• Guaranteeing availability of root servers
• Maintaining the ccTLD database
• Root servers no contracts in place, but status
  quo works
• ccTLD database
• Formal changes
• Change of Registry operator

19
ccNSO

• Preamble, section 4.10, 10.2.6
• Paragraphs 22, 40, and 82 of CENTRs response
• Several references removed, but remains in
  (new)4.8
• Not yet established membership smaller than eg
  CENTR

20
Public right, public duty, and internet identity

• Preamble of discussion draft
• Paragraph 21 of CENTR response
• ccTLDs not a symbol of national identity
• Implication of public sector / regulation /
  government oversight.

21
What happens next?

• Discussion today
• Further detailed comments from ccTLDs?