ICANN The Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and Numbers

1
ICANN The Internet Compartion for Assigned
Names and Numbers President CEO Mike
Roberts November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth
Board
2
ICANN The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers President CEO Stuart Lynn
Board seats
2 CCSO
3
ERC PROPOSAL
Chair Selected by the Council
Providers
Users
GAC Appointer (non-voting)
4
ERC PROPOSAL
The Country Names Council
Unspecified number of regionally voting
Councillors
Unspecified number of regionally voting
Councillors
1/3 of Council by - appointments by Nominating
Committee (voting), - 1 GAC appointee
(non-voting)
5
International Council15 seats 3 per Region
15 seats 3 per Region
Chair elected by Council
International Assembly
Interface with other SOs
6
ccTLD Response to the Blueprint

• .The cctld members meeting in Bucharest Romania
  on 25th June have considered the Blueprint issued
  on 21st June. This response concentrates on the
  ccTLD aspects of the structure of the new ICANN
  proposed by the ICANN Board Evolution and Reform
  Committee (ERC). Due to the time available, the
  ccTLDs do not in this response address all the
  details of the Blueprint document and lack of
  comment should not be taken as approval.

7
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• .The ccTLDs are in favour of a number of aspects
  of the Blueprint, including the formation of an
  SO for developing policy on cctld domain name
  matters, and the provision of staffing.

8
ccTLD Resposnse to Blueprint

• In the spirit of bottom up development, the
  cctlds prefer to continue using the established
  name for this SO, (ccSO) which is used in all
  of our documentation, website domain name,
  committee names and lists, and which reflects the
  cultural and historical language of the internet.

9
ccTLD response to Blueprint
10
ccTLD Responsse to Blueprint

• 5 The board should not make policy in those areas
  for which a support organization exists. The
  function of the board is to receive and respond
  to policy that has been developed by those
  organisations specifically intended, designed,
  populated and staffed for the express purpose of
  developing policy.

11
ccTLD response to Blueprint

• It is not the boards job to make policy, but
  rather to ensure that policy developed is timely,
  useful, appropriate, and compliant with the
  processes of the respective SO providing it.

12
ccTLD Responsse to Blueprint

• Therefore the Board could not adopt any
• policy binding on ccTLDs that had not
• been through this process.

13
ccTLD Response To Blueprint

• The Board may initiate policy discussions in an
  SO, and might provide guidance and encouragement
  at various times in the SOs development process
  but it cannot be the Boards role to make policy
  in the absence of SO agreement.

14
ccTLD response to Blueprint
15
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• It will be a part of the ccSO function to
  characterise issues as either local or global.

16
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• The ccTLDs are committed to funding those
  overheads of the corporation directly related to
  ccTLD activities, for example the IANA services,
  and in addition are willing to make a fair
  contribution to ICANN for its more general
  overheads. While the level of funding is not a
  requisite part of the re-structuring debate, we
  make the following points

17
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• No cross subsidy of non-ccTLD activities
• ccSO approves the Icann Budget, then guarantees
  ccTLD funding to ICANN
• Allocation of funding between ccTLDs done by ccSO

18
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• The ccTLDs are not prepared to have any agency,
  including the Nominating Committee, appoint
  members to its Council, the International
  Council. We understand that the purpose of these
  appointments is to provide the council with
  individuals having the attributes described as
  desirable for Directors, and with the additional
  qualification of an interest in global names
  policy. Those attributes are present in the
  members of the ccSO, and will be available to the
  council, and to the Board by way of the ccSOs
  appointment of directors.

19
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• We understand the committees view is that such
  appointments will provide
• 1)reporting to the Board on minority view points,
• )facilitation in case of deadlock or other
  stoppages, and
• )leadership
• )representation in what is, otherwise, a
  monolithic structure

20
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• The ccTLDs will work with the committee to
  demonstrate that those concerns are already dealt
  with by the ccTLDs and their proposed ccSO
  structure (a copy of the draft structure for the
  SO, and its Council are attached)

21
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• The ccTLDs are prepared to work in close liaison
  with the GAC, in relation to those matters of
  interest to governments. We do not believe that
  an appointed liaison officer will be an efficient
  way of arranging that. We are committed to
  working with the GAC to improve liaison, and
  point instead to the first joint ccTLD-GAC
  workshop held in Bucharest

22
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• Each SO should have 3 seats on the Board. ..and
  for ICANN to have credibility as an international
  organisation, those interests should be
  represented on the board.. that number greatly
  facilitates fair geographic representation. With
  two directors, at any given time, three ccTLD
  regions are unrepresented

23
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• We suggest that the Board seats in question be
  re-allocated from those appointed by the
  Nominating Committee, reducing those to 5 (1 per
  geographic region) rather than creating any
  additional seats. This would mean that there
  would be 3 directors from each SO (a total of 9)
  providing specialist input, 10 directors from the
  wider community (5 voting and 5 non-voting)
  providing general, public interest perspectives
  and the CEO.

24
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• We have reservations about the concept and
  composition of the Nominating Committee, and
  ICANNs ability to find and select members in an
  open transparent and contestable manner in the
  time frame. If there is to be such a body, it is
  essential for the reputation of the Corporation
  that there be no allegation that it was not
  created under conditions of the greatest fairness
  and openness.

25
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• The ccTLD representation in the Nominating
  Committee is disproportionately small (1 of 19
  seats). We recommend that should a Nominating
  Committee be created there should 1
  representative of the ccTLD mangers and 5
  regionally selected representatives of local
  internet communities, with the ccSO recommending
  candidates to the Board

26
ccTLD Response to Blueprint

• The ccTLDs recommend that there be no extension
  of the current 2 term limit for directors.
• The ccTLDs look forward to working with the ERC
  to develop a transition plan and schedule that
  can be implemented.

27
Policy Development Process ccSO (see
www.wwtld.org/documents)
International Council Vice President,
Works (Policy Development)
GNSO
International Assembly An Open List for the
discussion of ccTLD matters, announcements,
Minutes etc
Rapporteur provides synthesis
Implement as Policy
Council reviews
Establish a Working Group (plus outside
Representatives)
28
Developments since Bucharestthe Boards
instruction to ERC.

• Board in Romania adopts Blueprint, saying meeting
  in Bucharest had provided additional
  feedback...
• Public Forum had identified the following
  important issuesgeo/cultural diversityAt Large
  Committee creationNom.Com to be
  balancedcollaborate with critical infrastructure
  providers.(contd)

29
Developments since Bucharestthe boards
instruction

• and the technical community to further the
  establishment of effective working relationships
• ensure that Icanns policy development
  processes enhance and promote a transparent
  bottom up process

30
Documents issued by ICANN since Bucharest

• 15 July Status Report on Implementation
• 26 July Names Policy AG - Preliminary
• 29 July Accountability AG -Preliminary
• 1 August First Interim Implementation
• 2 September 2nd Interim Implementation
• 19 August ALAC AG Reports

31
Developments since Bucharest

• 21 August Adcom conference call with ERC
  recomends cc AG
• further discussion with Adcom promised
• last contact by ERC with adcom
• 23 August ccTLD group call with ERC - discusses
  cc AG
• No further contact

32
Developments since Bucharest

• 21 August NP AG reports on NPDP
• 2 September 2nd Interin Implementation
• 18 September ERC announces formation of ccAG

33
Developments since Bucharest

• 20 September Renewal of MoU between
• US Government and ICANN
• 20 September Statement from USG on
• Extension

34
Documents issued by ICANN

• 2 October Final Implementation Report
• First re-drafted Bylaws
• GNSO policy development
• process annexed
• 4 October Progress report from ccNSO
• Assistance Group

35
Documents issued by ICANN

• 9 October RIRs deliver Blueprint for
• Evolution of Address Management
• 11 October First Supplemental
• Implementation Report
• 12 October Fourth Status Report (on RIRs)

36
Documents issued by ICANN

• 22 October ccNSO Update to ERC
• 23 October Second Supplemental
• Implementation Report
• Second Re-draft of
  proposed
• Bylaws