Perfecting the ccTLD Support Organization

1
Perfecting the ccTLD Support Organization

• Strengthening the ccNSO and ICANN bylaws

2
A ReminderWhy 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

3
A ReminderWhy an ICANN SO?

• If we dont 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

4
A ReminderWhy 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 secure contract for continued IANA service (
  supply, plus liability hand-off)
• . Control of the policy over entries in the IANA
  cctld database ( redelegation safety)

5
A ReminderWhy 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

6
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

7
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 re-make ccTLD
  policy )

8
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

9
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

10
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 RegistryPolicy role ccNSO
  Policy Development Process (ICANN)Executive
  role ICANN (IANA)Accountability role ICANN
  community, ccTLD Managers, US DoC, (national
  authorities in some cases)

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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..

15
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, applns for
  membership approved
• 4 of 5 regions are now represented in SO

16
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.

17
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