[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]

APTLD Response to ERC Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report
  • To: reform-comments@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: APTLD Response to ERC Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report
  • From: barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:08:35 +1200
  • Cc: board@xxxxxxxxx, cctld-discuss@xxxxxxxxx, board@xxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxx
  • Priority: normal

Dear ERC

Below are the comments of the Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association on the 
latest ERC Report

Please note that the response time suggested in your website (by 7 May) is very 
short, making a considered response difficult to accomplish, particularly having 
regard to the need to translate the report into national languages.

As you will see below, there is a division between members in relation to one issue, 
but rather than take further time to see if this can be resolved, we have provided our 
comments to inform your debate as soon as possible.

APTLD looks forward to resolving remaining issues by good faith dialogue with the 

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice President

APTLD members have reviewed the ERC Recommendations on the ccNSO (see
ion- report-22apr03.htm )

In considering those, APTLD has had regard to the development of the
concept of a Support Organisation for cctld matters within ICANN,
including the work done at international meetings by cctlds between
November 2000 and June 2002 preparing the SO and generating support for
the SO concept from various ICANN constituents, the Blueprint produced by
the ERC in June of 2002 which endorsed the concept of a cctld SO, the
response to the Blueprint produced by the cctlds in Bucharest in June
2002, the separate reports of the cc Assistance Group and the Compiled
Recommendations extensively reviewed in Rio in March 2003. (See References 

APTLD members have made individual, and group submissions and comments,
together with the cctld community  on the above documents, which include
the Resolutions of the ccTLD meeting at Rio de Janeiro ( see
:http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/Rio/ccNSO_resolution.html ).

APTLD now believes that the ERC recommendations are sufficiently developed
, and sufficiently in accordance with the cctld requirements for a cctld
Support Organisation that work should begin on implementation of the
recommendations of the ERC.

There remain some matters in the Recommendations, discussed below, which
require further change, or development before APTLD accepts that the
proposed SO will be properly constituted.

APTLD  proposes that further negotiations in good faith continue between
the cctlds and the ERC to resolve these remaining matters before any
bylaws are adopted.

Matters requiring attention.

1. Appointment of Voting members of Council
(a) Appointments of unelected representatives to the elected council of
the SO are not acceptable, while the appointing body has no delegates
appointed by the ccSO. (It is noted the ICANN board has made an
appointment in the name of the cctlds.)

(b) Given the size of the Nominating Committee, a single delegate from the
cctld community is unacceptable if that body is charged with making
appointments to the Country Council.

(c) It will take some time to elect the first Country Council, amend the
bylaws to increase the number of delegates on the Nominating Committee,
and prepare a specification for the positions to be appointed, on which
the Council will want to be heard. The cctlds have made no comment on the
formation, structure or membership of the Nominating Committee, nor the
objectives against which any of its appointments are to be assessed. The
previous position of the cctlds was that the Nominating Committee would
play no part in the ccTLD Support Organisation.

(d) Appointment of voting delegates to the Country Council should be
deferred for up to two years to allow those matters to occur.

(e) During that period, cctlds and the Board will also periodically review
the operation of the SO to measure the need for such appointments in any
event.It is noted that the existence of such nominees is not required in
any ERC proposals for the Address Support Organisation, and meets a
particular need in the GNSO not present in the features of the cctld-ICANN

2. Individual country exemptions from policy decisions
(a) APTLD notes the acceptance, present in the Recommendations, that
individual cctlds may seek exemption from implementing any SO-developed
policy on grounds that to do so would breach custom, religion or public
policy. The Recommendations require an application for exemption be made
to the Council, which is required to sustain an exemption by a 66%
majority vote. (b) APTLD believes that this approach fails to recognise
the presently independent ability of cctlds to adopt policies  according
to local authority. Recognising the obligations cctlds have to the wider
internet community, APTLD accepts that exemptions should not be readily
available in matters which impair the operation of the DNS. In all other
matters, however, APTLD believes that an exemption  should be accepted
unless a 66% of the Council vote against it.

3. Continued IANA service to non-Members of the SO

(a) APTLD is concerned that membership of the SO, which will be voluntary,
is different and seen to be separate from the individual relationship
cctlds have with IANA.

(b) APTLD members will look to continued service from the IANA.

4 Initial Implementation Steps
(a)  While negotiations on the above matters continues to reach acceptable
solutions, APTLD supports the formation of a Launching Group, which can
take the form proposed, being 9 cc members of the Assistance group plus 6
further cctld representatives.

 (b)  APTLD believes that the further cctld representatives should be
 elected or appointed by the cctld community.The regional associations seem well
suited to that task.

(c) Those positions should be filled in compliance with the principle of
geographic diversity.

(d) APTLD notes that the primary function of the Group is to conduct the
election of the first Council, after which it will dissolve. 

(e) APTLD strongly recommends that no member of the Launching Group be
eligible for election to the Council, in the first election and for one
year after that. The familiarity with the rules and  process of the
election, which members of the Group will have having created them,
creates at least the impression of advantage, which should be avoided.
***Please note: The representatives from .au (Australia) and .jp (Japan) each 
disassociate themselves from this position, believing that there should be no 
eligibility bar preventing members of the launching group standing in the election for 
the first Council.

5. Role of the APTLD in the SO

(a) The Recommendations provide for a number of functions associated with
the SO, particularly in the PDP process to be carried out by "ccTLD
regional organisations".

(b)  Assuming continued progress on the items above, APTLD looks forward
to providing those functions in relation to the Asia Pacific region


1 Unanimous cctld vote to withdraw from DNSO and set up ccSO:Stockholm,
June 2001 
20 01.html

2. ccTLDs agree that some binding policies could be made through an ICANN
SO - Montevideo, September 2001:
001.html, and

3. First draft bylaws of a ccSO;  Marina del Rey, November 2001 

4. Second draft bylaws for ccSO, April 2002 

5. Blueprint for Reform adopts principle of an SO for the ccTLDs

6. Detailed response to Blueprint from cctlds; Bucharest, June 2002

7. Final withdrawal from DNSO Shanghai, October, 2002

8. Compiled recommendations of the Assistance Group, Rio March 2003

16 May 2003

[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy