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

CENTR Response to "ERC's Response to Comments Received on ccNSO Recommendations(aka ccNSO11)"
  • To: reform-comments@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: CENTR Response to "ERC's Response to Comments Received on ccNSO Recommendations(aka ccNSO11)"
  • From: CENTR Secretariat <secretariat@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:13:30 +0200
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cctld-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Dear all,

Please find below (and attached in original format) CENTR's response to 
the the ICANN ERC's most recently response. Explanatory notes are inside 
the document.


                         CENTR Response to
  ”ERC’s Response to Comments Received on ccNSO Recommendations”

Status of this document

This document is a CENTR Draft Comment.

This document has been developed in accordance with the CENTR Policy 
Development Procedures, as approved at the CENTR General Assembly in 
Budapest on 3 June, 2003.

The paper labelled as a CENTR Draft Comment is a position paper 
developed by CENTR and CENTR members in a very short timeframe.

This document is non-binding to CENTR members, but reflects to the best 
of our knowledge CENTR member position.

                                  Version 2.0
                                 16 June, 2003


Please Note

This document was written prior to the publication of the proposed ICANN 
Bylaw amendments on 13 June 2003. We were not able to submit the 
document by the 12 June 2003 deadline due to a necessity to ratify the 
document with our members – and the short timeframe supplied by the ERC 
to provide comments.

We note that some of our concerns have been addressed subsequently by 
the bylaws, but believe the comments are still valid and warrant 


The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR) 
submits these comments on the most recent publication by the ICANN ERC 
on the development of a Country Code Name Supporting Organisation.

We would like to thank the ERC for the ongoing dialogue on the 
construction of the Organisation and hope that this will assist in the 
reform process.

In our last submission, we urged that the ccNSO be an inclusive forum, 
with open membership to all ccTLD managers, with low entry criteria, a 
member approved funding structure, and a narrowly defined mandate to set 
global policy, and that ICANN and IANA policy should be clearly separated.

We welcome that many of CENTR’s suggestions have been taken into 
account, but also note that some fundamental areas of concern have yet 
to be addressed.

Nominating Committee Appointments

CENTR reiterates that it believes a fair balance of ccTLD regional 
representation is required on the Nominating Committee, and that an 
appropriate number of delegates from the ccTLD community would be five – 
one from each region.

We believe that it is appropriate that the Nominating Committee not make 
appointments to the ccNSO Council until this representation is increased 
as requested.


We consider one of the fundamental requirements of the ccNSO is that it 
has a limited, well-defined scope that ensures its role is purely for 
global policy coordination within the scope of ICANN. ccTLDs are largely 
locally-governed, responding to their local Internet community needs in 
developing policy. The global nature of their policy is limited to a 
coordination role currently fulfilled by IANA.

We reiterate, as per Resolution 2 of the ccTLDs at the ICANN Meetings in 
Rio De Janeiro, and further in our last submission to the ERC, that the 
role for global binding policy be clearly defined as only relating to 
this global coordination role performed by IANA.

We do not agree that members of the ccNSO be bound to follow policies as 
part of their membership policies. It is only appropriate that policies 
be binding as part of an agreement between ICANN and a specific ccTLD 
manager. A distinction must be made between the contractual relationship 
between the ccTLD manager and ICANN, and between the ccTLD manager and 
the ccNSO.

We agree that the ccNSO must develop this global policy through a 
bottom-up, inclusive process that requires regional consensus.


We still consider the requirement that the ccNSO council vote upon an 
exemption based on national issues for specific ccTLDs to be 
inappropriate. If a registry provides documented evidence that a policy 
with infringe upon nationally agreed policies, then we believe the ccNSO 
council has no ability to then reject the exemption.

Policy Development Process

CENTR reiterates that it believes that 40 is a more appropriate number 
of ccTLDs required to being the ccNSO.

Whilst this number will potentially delay the work of the ccNSO, it is 
nonetheless essential that the ccNSO has sufficiently diverse buy-in for 
its work in order to have the necessary credibility to represent ccTLD 
consensus. We do not believe a mere 20 ccTLDs can truly represent the 
diverse opinions of ccTLDs in an acceptable way.

We recognise and thank the ERC for its clear comments on the role of the 
board in ratifying, or returning, policy of the ccNSO.

Decision Making

We vehemently disagree that the concept of a quorum is not needed for 
member votes. Should a motion or policy fail due to lack of 
participation in voting, that is a clear indication that the proposition 
needs more work. This is fundamental to the democratic process.

Should a vote pass with a minimum number of votes that does not 
represent substantial cross-section of members – the result clearly can 
not be considered as representing a valid position of the entire group.

Staff Support and Funding

We agree with the ERC, that it is for the ccNSO to determine whether 
such administrative support is suitable or not.

Launching Group

We agree with the role of the launching group, but are concerned about 
the lack of diversity of membership – and the implications that may have 
on fair and unbiased elections of to the inaugural ccNSO council.

If members of a small launching group are also permitted to stand for 
election to the council, there is clearly a lack of separation those who 
determine the election rules and who are directly governed by them.

We believe either the launching group must have a more diverse 
membership (or wholly inclusive membership of all willing ccTLDs), or 
there should be a prohibition on launching group members standing for 
election to the inaugural council.


CENTR believes it is important to establish the ccNSO with strong 
support for the organisation by ccTLD managers, otherwise it will not be 
a success. We look to continue to refining the structure of the 
organisation so that it can fulfil its potential and meet the 
expectations of the community.

We encourage the proposed ICANN Bylaws be published as soon as possible 
so the ccTLD community has the greatest possibility to evaluate them in 
advance of the approaching ICANN Meetings in Montreal. We are greatly 
concerned that the late publication of the bylaws will limit the 
necessary community discussion on them, therefore resulting in a lack of 
proper consultation before their adoption.

Attachment: centr.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy