ICANN The Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and Numbers

1
(No Transcript)
2
ICANN The Internet Compartion for Assigned
Names and Numbers President CEO Mike
Roberts November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth
Board
3
AP-ccTLD-ICANNRelationships

• The Money The Power The
  Credibility and
• The Balance

4
Where is the Money?

• 30 Million names in .com, .org, .net
• New registrations thru July, 2001 3,123,612
• 11 million in ccTLDsthe future?
• VeriSign has about 50 share as registrar
• Over 100,000 testbed IDNS
• Increasing Trade name protection in ccTLD
• However 180 ccTLDs under 50,000 names

5
Where is the Power

• Facilitating Trade All countries
• Access Internet users as a market for domain
  names.
• Access to consumers for advertising and
  e-commerce.
• ccTLD diversity, lends Legitimacy, 244 ccs
• Regional ccTLD Associations (some in formation
  only)
• North America
• Asia Pacific
• European Union
• Latin America
• Africa and Middle East

6
Need global body to represent

• cc Internet Managers, and their LICs.
• Taking into account
• Best Practices,
• RFC 1591
• Governments
• Separate Incorporation legal status
• can enter contracts, issue invoices
• can be tax free

7
ccTLD Issues

• International Domain Names
• New gTLDs and their impact
• Procedure for update of IANA database
• Contract with ICANN
• Pressure to include universal UDRP
• Representation Level in ICANN
• Financial contributions to ICANN

8
Needs to be outside ICANN

• To negotiate common issues with ICANN
• a collective trade association -
• strong can aid the weak, the early can
• protect the later
• because ICANN staff requested a peer
• because there are LIC issues which dont
• affect ICANN

9
The peerorganisation

• Date sentMon, 1 Nov 1999 201235 GMT
• From "Antony Van Couvering"
• To ltcctld-discuss_at_lists.wwtld.orggt
• Hi,
• Here is the transcript I made of this morning's
  session Nov. 1, 1999) between Josh Elliott of
  IANA and the ccTLD managers. Louis
  Touton,counsel for ICANN, and Andrew McLaughlin,
  ICANN's staff person, also attended, and indeed
  answered many of the questions.

10
The peer contd.

• Andrew McLaughlin - Relationship between ICANN
  and IANA. I am the only
• staff person at ICANN. First task at ICANN has
  been to try to rationalize
• the relationship and the gTLDs. Recognize that
  doing the same for ccTLDs is the next priority.
  AM, MR, and Louis Touton will talk to anyone
  about this. ICANN hoping to establish a
  relationship of peers.

11
The peer contd.

• Dennis Jennings - Top 5 issues of concern to
  CENTR members (1) Agreement for root services
  (2) Relationship between ccTLDs and ICANN (3)
  Best practices (4) Change of ccTLD managers (5)
  Funding.
• On the second point,I am heartened by your
  comments for a peer-to-peer relationship. Quite
  a number of ccTLDs are thinking of a ccTLD
  organization separately from the ccTLD
  constituency within the DNSO.

12
The peer contd

• Andrew M.
• IANA's policies are well articulated now, we need
  changes. There is no way for the ccTLDs to talk
  to ICANN as one body. Outside of the DNSO, there
  needs to be a peer relationship between ICANN and
  ccTLDs outside of the DNSO.

13
Why Outside?

• Issues of
• re-delegation
• of DRP
• of content
• of 2lds, pricing, etc
• are outside ICANNs mandate

14
Why Outside

• Because Intellectual property interests,
• the GAC
• the NCDNH, and Verisign
• believe they should be able to shape cc policy
• SECURITY
• - ICANN may fail.

15
BENEFITS OF BEING WITHIN ICANN

• Cooperation with IANA
• Cooperation with g-TLDs
• Cooperation with ASO, PSO, DNSO,
• Adding political credibility to Icann
• Facilitating funding
• Cohesive global internet development

16
NEEDS NOT TO BE A DNSO CONSTITUENCY

• g-TLD focus
• NSI battles
• udrp
• Verisign -commercial only focus
• No concept of LIC, service, or government
• Stockholm communique

17
NEEDS TO BE A SUPPORT ORGANISATION

• The ICANN bylaws allow further SOs
• there is no better alternative in the bylaws
• SOs create policy, for Board to implement
• The Board is obliged to follow an SOs policy
• Board representation ensured.

18
NEED AN OUTSIDE ORGANISATION WHICH AGREES TO
SERVE AS THE CCSO

• This model works- see the PSO
• It has considerable staff support
• It has some Board support
• It has majority DNSO support.

19
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.

20
NEED AGREEMENT IN MONTEVIDEO

• 1. Incorporation outside ICANN
• 2. Willingness to sign MoU as ccSO

21
New ICANN Structures?

• ALSC report possibilities
• Directors 6-6-6 Tech, Providers, Users
• ASO-PSO-6, DNSO 6, At-Large Ncom 6
• Mike Roberts Proposal
• ccTLD 2 directors, gTLD 2 directors
• Elisabeth Porteneuve Proposal
• 6-6-6 with ccTLD at 6 directors

22
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

23
Incorporation Issues

• Need a name which better describes us
• eg Association of Internet Managers
• for Country Codes
• AIMcc
• Need to decide membership structure
• Regional, or Individual?

24
Membership Structure

• Arguments for Regional
• Lightweight
• impossible getting global consensus
• shrinks power of regions
• supported on lists by Europeans

• Arguments for Individuals
• more democratic
• one registry, one vote
• Harder to capture
• More than just 5 members
• Flatter structure
• (fewer layers)

25
Membership Structure

• Argument against Regional
• requires audit of regional associations
• ( to avoid, eg IATLD)
• Ignores differences in size of internet in
  regions
• ( Europe vs Africa)

• Argument vs Individuals
• Too hard to get global consensus, even in regions
• regional associations will act as lobby groups,
  anyway
• easier for new ccs to travel to regional meetings

26
Solutions

• Regional
• an association of 5 region associations-aptld,aftl
  d..
• regional secretariats act as executive in
  rotation 3 ys?
• 3 reps. from each region form ccBoard
• Chair elected from region hosting exec.

• Individual
• An association open to all representatives of cc
  registries- .cn,.tw.,my..
• Elect 15 reps to ccBoard, 3 per region
• (possibly, elect to regional councils)
• Use existing cc Secretariat.

27
Functioning as an SO

• ccBoard acts as ccCouncil
• (like the present Names Council)
• Policy issues raised from international
  assembly like the present cctld-discuss list
• ccCouncil forms working groups to prepare policy
• policy adopted by ccCouncil goes to Icann Board.

28
Functioning as an SO (continued)

• ccCouncil elects 3-4 Icann Board directors
• ccs meet in one day plenary at ICANN meetings,
  report of working groups.
• ccCouncil meets 1/2 day, reports to Open Forum,
  and to Board
• ccCouncil liaises with GAC, ALM,gDNSO, etc

29
Other Issues

• Subscriptions policy
• APTLD model -self select, including 0.00
• Centr model?
• Other models?
• Membership numbers threshold
• do we wait for 242 to sign on?
• Only need 5 to incorporate

30
Other Issues (continued)

• 3 or 4 Board seats?
• Negotiations need to continue with others

31
Conclusions

• In the absence of law, negotiation rules.
• A strong, financial viable organization for
  ccTLDs is necessary for negotiation with ICANN
  and domain name business interests.
• ccTLD must take the initiative, and not wait to
  see what ICANN and domain name business interests
  offer.
• ccTLDs must get their fair share of political
  respect, retain local sovereignty.
• We can do it, if we wish to.
• This is a good time to start. (ALSC ICANN
  reorganization)

32
Timeline

• Montevideo 5-10 Sept. Debate on principles
  concludes
• 14-21 Sept. Principles
  published, lobbying begins
• 21 Sept. Voting on
  principles occurs online
• 5 Oct. Draft Articles for
  AIMcc posted
• 12 Oct.Voting on Articles
  online occurs
• 14 October AIMcc
  incorporated.
• 14-21 AIM Bylaws published
  for comment
• 22 Oct. Voting on Aim Bylaws
  
• 26 Oct ccSO Articles and
  Bylaws published
• 26 Oct-10 Nov. ccSO AB
  debated on line
• Los Angeles11 Nov. Voting to adopt byelaws
  (live)