Home / About / Newsroom / APTLD Response to ERC’s Response to Comments Received on ccNSO Recommendations

APTLD Response to ERC’s Response to Comments Received on ccNSO Recommendations

< back to list
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.

WordPress Lessons