Comment ccNSO11: APTLD's Response to ERC's Response to Comments Received on ccNSO Recommendations

["joanna@xxxxx" <joanna@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear ERC,

Below (and attached) are the comments of Asia Pacific Top Level Domain
Association on the latest ERC Response.

Thank you very much for your attention, we look forward to your positive
consideration.

Joanna Tso
APTLD Secretariat

APTLD Response to

ERC's Response to Comments Received on ccNSO Recommendations (29 May
2003)

1.  At the APTLD Member Meeting held in Kuala Lumpur on 30 May 2003,
members, both physically present or remotely participating via
teleconference facility, reviewed and discussed the newly published
"ERC's Response to Comments Received on its ccNSO Recommendations" on
29 May 2003.

2.  After consultation with members who were not able to participate
in the meeting, APTLD would like to express thanks to the ERC for its
tireless effort to establish the ccNSO and its willingness to respond
transparently to the comments received in response to the ERC's Fifth
Supplemental Implementation Report (Recommendations for the ccNSO),
as well as appreciation to see that some of APTLD's comments were
accepted by ERC.

3.  ERC's suggestion to start the ccNSO operation when 20 ccTLD
managers joined the ccNSO membership is accepted; but believes that
a considerably greater number of members should exist before the first
PDP is commenced.  APTLD refers to the ccTLD Rio Response, and confirms
that the 40 members suggested there would provide a sufficient threshold
of member numbers to provide the required confidence in the outcome.

4.  APTLD accepts that simple supermajority voting (rather than a
unanimously regional supermajority vote) in the PDP will be appropriate,
and that a quorum for such a vote (subject to the 40 member threshold
mentioned above) is not required.

5.  APTLD does not accept that the General Counsel's opinion on the
value of any PDP is appropriate for mandatory inclusion in an Issues
Report, which should be limited to questions of law, not subjective
judgment on policy matters.

6.  APTLD would like to express our readiness to participate in the
establishment of the ccNSO and provide functions as a regional TLD
organization of the Asia Pacific region.  APTLD is consulting with its
members about participating in the Launching Group.

7.  However, there remain two issues which need to be further negotiated
in order to build proper foundations for the establishment of the ccNSO
so that it will fulfill the objectives it is designed to perform. The
following two items are matters that APTLD expects further change before
the bylaw is posted for adoption:

   I.  APTLD regrets that the ERC declined to address the issue to
   increase ccTLD delegates to the Nom Com at present stage.
   Furthermore, ERC also declined the request for deferral of NomCom's
   appointments to the ccNSO Council until the NomCom is properly
   represented by ccNSO delegate appointed by the ccNSO Council. APTLD
   continues to strongly express that we maintain our position in
   requesting deferral of NomCom's appointments to the ccNSO Council
   until either the NomCom is sufficiently represented with ccTLD
   delegates or otherwise properly represented.  APTLD points out that a
   deferral until the ccTLD delegates are on the Nominating Committee
   allows the following benefits:

      (a) The monitoring of the performance of the Nominating Committee
      and its appointments to the GNSO.
      (b) The monitoring of the possible extension of Nominating
      Committee appointments to the council of the ASO, and the ASO
      response to such proposals

   II. APTLD notes ERC's position regarding the eligibility of members
   of LG to stand for election of the first Council. Nevertheless, as
   some of APTLD members felt strongly about allowing situations and
   advantages when the election candidates are the very same persons
   whom designed and operate the election, we've reached agreement that
   there should be statements issued by the Launching Group promptly
   after its formation, explaining how it proposes to conduct the election
   and addressing the issues of conflict of interest. The statements will
   request the LG member who stands for the council election to refrain
   from situations if there's conflict of interest.

8.  APTLD looks forward to the release of draft bylaws that reflect
the clear community consensus that has developed on a number of important
issues.

9.  Draft Bylaws published in sufficient time before the Montreal
meeting to allow regional consideration will be most useful.