icann the internet compartion for assigned names and numbers president & ceo: mike roberts

ICANN

The Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and NumbersPresident & CEO: Mike Roberts

November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth Board

3 PSO 3 ASO 4 VB’s 5 @ Large3 DNSO

Domain Name Support Org.

Names Council (21)

ISPS

Trade Marks

Business

Non-Commercial

Registries

Registrars

Country Code Managers

General Assembly

Protocol Support Org

ITUIETFETSI

WWWCRIPEARIN

APNIC

At LargeMembership

176,837

GAC

Becky Burr

Bob Shaw

ChristopherWilkinson

WIPO

Others

IRP

ICANN

CHAIR: VINT CERF

4 ccSO

Address Support Org

AddressCouncil

ICANN

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and NumbersPresident & CEO: Stuart Lynn

8 “At Large”2 GNSO

Names Council (16)

ISPS

Registries

Registrars

Non-Commercial

Trade Marks

Business

Selected by the

Nominating Committee*

General Assembly

2 ASO

RIPEARIN

APNICLACNIC

tbd

Address Support Org

AddressCouncil

5 Liaison

TAC

IAB/IETF

RSSAC

SAC

GAC

g Registries

g Registrars

c Registries

RIR’s

ISP’s

Large business users

Small business users

IP organisations

Academic/Public

Consumer groups

Individual Nameholders

IAB/IETF

TAC

GAC

4 unspecified

* Non Com2 CCSOBoard seats

Generic Support Org

Standing committees

Others ?

Voting members commit to

ICANN policy development

CHAIR: VINT CERF

ICANN

International Council (number

unspecified)

Country code Support Org

ERC PROPOSAL

The “Names Council”

Chair Selected by the Council

Providers Users

ISP

ISP

Registries

Registries

Registrars

Registrars

Business

Business

Non Commercial

Non Commercial

IP

IP

Elected by Nom Com (voting)



GAC Appointer(non-voting)

ERC PROPOSAL

The Country Names Council

1/3 of Council by :

- appointments by Nominating Committee (voting),

- 1 GAC appointee (non-voting)

Unspecified number of regionally voting

Councillors

Unspecified number of regionally voting

Councillors

International Council15 seats: 3 per Region

International Assembly

Latin America Asia Pacific African European North

AmericaMember ccTLDS

Chair elected by Council

LACTLD APTLD AFTLD CENTR NATLDRegional associations by contract

Secretariat

3 seats elected to

ICANN Board 15 seats: 3 per Region

Officers: VP’s for Works, L&R, Membership, F&A

Interface with other

SO’s

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.

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.

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.

ccTLD response to Blueprint

The cctlds are committed to a continuing dialogue within ICANN in goodfaith on a number of matters in which the cctlds disagree with therecommendations or discussion in the Blueprint. The following paragraphsoutline the most important of those differences

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.


• It is not the board’s 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.

ccTLD Responsse to Blueprint

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

ccTLD Response To Blueprint

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


Policy for each ccTLD is primarily local and is therefore made locally by the localinternet community for the local internet community. The primary purpose ofthe ccSO is to provide policy on the few matters which are of globalsignificance. Those have been recognized by the ccTLDs as :“… a carefully definable set of global issues which can be put throughthe ccSO consensus policy development process to the policy making processof the Corporation. These are referred to herein as “global” policies.”


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


– 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:


• 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


– 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 ccSO’s appointment of directors.


– We understand the committee’s 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


• 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)


• 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


• 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


• 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.


– We have reservations about the concept and composition of the Nominating Committee, and ICANN’s 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.


• 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


– 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.

Implement as Policy

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

Council reviews

Establish a Working Group

(plus outside Representatives)

Policy Development Process : ccSO (see www.wwtld.org/documents)

Issue List automatically created by Secretariat/VP

Notified. Specified period.

Notice of Policy Request

Remits for further work

Developments since Bucharest;the Board’s instruction to ERC.

• Board in Romania adopts Blueprint, saying

meeting in Bucharest had provided “additional feedback”...

• Public Forum had identified the following important issues…geo/cultural diversity…At Large Committee creation…Nom.Com to be balanced…collaborate with critical infrastructure providers….(cont’d)

Developments since Bucharest;the board’s instruction

• …and the technical community to further the establishment of effective working relationships

• “…ensure that Icann’s policy development processes enhance and promote a transparent bottom up process”

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

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


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

ccAG


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

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


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

RIRs)


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