about
Home / About / Newsroom / APTLD Response to ERC’s 5th Supplemental Report (Recommendations on ccNSO)

APTLD Response to ERC’s 5th Supplemental Report (Recommendations on ccNSO)

< back to list
16 May 2003

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

ERC.

Peter Dengate Thrush

Senior Vice President

APTLD

*************************************************************************************************

APTLD members have reviewed the ERC Recommendations on the ccNSO (see http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/fifth-supplemental-implementation- 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 below)

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 relationship.

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 recognize 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.

References.

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

http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/Stockholm2001/Executive_summary_01June

20 01.html

2. ccTLDs agree that some binding policies could be made through an ICANN SO – Montevideo, September 2001

http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/Montevideo2001/Executive_Summary_07Sept2001.html, and

http://www.wwtld.org/communique/ccTLDMontevideo_communique_09Sep2001.html

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

http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/ccSO_draft_proposal.html

4. Second draft bylaws for ccSO, April 2002

http://www.wwtld.org/ongoing/ccso_formation/ccSOapp2-1.html

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

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm

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

http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/Bucharest2002/ccTLD_response_ERC.html

7. Final withdrawal from DNSO Shanghai, October 2002

http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/shanghai/ccTLDShanghai_Communique_30Oct2002.html

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

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/ccnsoag-report-26feb03.htm

WordPress Lessons