Transcript USG U$G DOD NSF NSI (1993) $1,000,000 .com, .org, .net 1995 Information Superhighway Ira Magaziner USC.ISI RFCs NTIA DOC (Becky Burr) IANA 20 Feb 1998: Green Paper JON Postel Vint Cerf IAB RFC.1591 .NZ .FR .DE Proposal PrivatiseProposal I50 GTLDS .AU .KR 1996 IAHC MoU gTLDs Geneva $50 ISOC Mike Roberts Trade Mark Owners (WIPO) INTA ITU (Bob.

USG
U$G
DOD
NSF
NSI (1993)
$1,000,000
.com, .org, .net
1995 Information
Superhighway
Ira Magaziner
USC.ISI
RFCs
NTIA
DOC
(Becky Burr)
IANA
20 Feb 1998: Green Paper
JON Postel
1990
Vint Cerf IAB
RFC.1591
.NZ
.FR
.DE
1994
Proposal
Privatise
1995
Proposal
I50 GTLDS
.AU
.KR
1996 IAHC
MoU gTLDs
Geneva
1995
$50
1992
ISOC
Mike Roberts
Trade Mark
Owners
(WIPO) INTA
ITU
(Bob Shaw)
2M
In
1998
.JP
18M
.CI
2000
242 FOJ’s
3 June 1998: White Paper
Foreign
Governments
Twomey (AU)
Wilkinson (EU)
ICANN
13 September 1998
ORSC
BWG
18 October 1998:
Jon Died
25 November 1998:
DOC signs 2 year
MoU
ICANN
ICANN
The Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and Numbers
IRP
President & CEO: Mike Roberts
CHAIR: VINT CERF
November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth Board
3 DNSO
Domain Name
Support Org.
3 PSO
Protocol
Support Org
Names Council (21)
ISPS
Trade Marks
ITU
IETF
ETSI
WWWC
3 ASO
44 ccSO
VB’s
5 @ Large
GAC
Address
Support Org
Address
Council
At Large
Membership
Becky Burr
Bob Shaw
176,837
RIPE
ARIN
APNIC
Christopher
Wilkinson
WIPO
Business
Non-Commercial
Registries
Registrars
Country Code Managers
General Assembly
Others
AP-ccTLD-ICANN
Relationships
The Money
The Power
The Credibility and
The Balance
Where is the Money?
• 30 Million names in .com, .org, .net
– New registrations thru July, 2001: 3,123,612
•
•
•
•
11 million in ccTLDs…the future?
VeriSign has about 50% share as registrar
Over 100,000 “testbed” IDNS
Increasing Trade name protection in ccTLD
However: 180 ccTLDs under 50,000 names
Where is the Power
• Facilitating Trade: All countries
– Access Internet users as a market for domain names.
– Access to consumers for advertising and e-commerce.
• ccTLD diversity, lends Legitimacy, 244 ccs
• Regional ccTLD Associations (some in formation only)
–
–
–
–
–
North America
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Africa and Middle East
Need global body to represent
•
•
•
•
•
•
cc Internet Managers, and their LICs.
Taking into account:
Best Practices,
RFC 1591
Governments
Separate Incorporation = legal status
can enter contracts, issue invoices
can be tax free
ccTLD Issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International Domain Names
New gTLDs and their impact
Procedure for update of IANA database
Contract with ICANN
Pressure to include “universal” UDRP
Representation Level in ICANN
Financial contributions to ICANN
Needs to be outside ICANN
• To negotiate common issues with ICANN;
• a collective trade association • strong can aid the weak, the early can
protect the later;
• because ICANN staff requested a “peer;”
• because there are LIC issues which don’t
affect ICANN
The “peer”organisation
Date sent:Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:12:35 GMT
From:
"Antony Van Couvering"
To:
<[email protected]>
Hi,
Here is the transcript I made of this morning's session
Nov. 1, 1999) between Josh Elliott of IANA and the
ccTLD managers. Louis Touton,counsel for ICANN, and
Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's staff person, also
attended, and indeed answered many of the questions.
The “peer” cont’d.
Andrew McLaughlin - Relationship between
ICANN and IANA. I am the only
staff person at ICANN. First task at
ICANN has been to try to rationalize
the relationship and the gTLDs.
Recognize that doing the same for
ccTLDs is the next priority. AM, MR,
and Louis Touton will talk to anyone
about this. ICANN hoping to establish a
relationship of peers.
The “peer” cont’d.
Dennis Jennings - Top 5 issues of concern
to CENTR members: (1) Agreement for
root services (2) Relationship between
ccTLDs and ICANN (3) Best practices (4)
Change of ccTLD managers (5) Funding.
On the second point,I am heartened by
your comments for a peer-to-peer
relationship. Quite a number of ccTLDs
are thinking of a ccTLD organization
separately from the ccTLD constituency
within the DNSO.
The “peer” cont’d
Andrew M.
IANA's policies are well articulated now,
we need changes. There is no way for
the ccTLDs to talk to ICANN as one
body. Outside of the DNSO, there needs
to be a peer relationship between ICANN
and ccTLDs outside of the DNSO.
Why Outside?
Issues of :
re-delegation
of DRP
of content
of 2ld’s, pricing, etc
are outside ICANN’s mandate
Why Outside
• Because: Intellectual property interests,
the GAC
the NCDNH, and Verisign
believe they should be able to shape cc policy
SECURITY
- ICANN may fail.
BENEFITS OF BEING
WITHIN ICANN
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cooperation with IANA
Cooperation with g-TLDs
Cooperation with ASO, PSO, DNSO,…
Adding political credibility to Icann
Facilitating funding
Cohesive global internet development
NEEDS NOT TO BE A DNSO
CONSTITUENCY
•
•
•
•
•
•
g-TLD focus
NSI battles
udrp
Verisign -commercial only focus
No concept of LIC, service, or government
Stockholm communique
NEEDS TO BE A SUPPORT
ORGANISATION
•
•
•
•
The ICANN bylaws allow further SO’s
there is no better alternative in the bylaws
SO’s create policy, for Board to implement
The Board is “obliged” to follow an SO’s
policy
• Board representation ensured.
NEED AN OUTSIDE
ORGANISATION WHICH
AGREES TO SERVE AS THE
CCSO
•
•
•
•
This model works- see the PSO
It has considerable staff support
It has some Board support
It has majority DNSO support.
The Credibility and Balance
• ICANN needs ccTLD to provide credibility.
• Without ccTLD ICANN is clearly US-centric
• ICANN will attempt to make individual deals with
strong countries one by one.
• In some cases ICANN may succeed with this.
• This could increase “Internet colonialism”
• A strong ccTLD is the key to balance of money,
power, credibility.
NEED AGREEMENT IN
MONTEVIDEO
• 1. Incorporation outside ICANN
• 2. Willingness to sign MoU as ccSO
New ICANN Structures?
• ALSC report possibilities
– Directors 6-6-6 Tech, Providers, Users
– ASO-PSO-6, DNSO 6, At-Large + Ncom 6
• Mike Roberts Proposal
– ccTLD 2 directors, gTLD 2 directors
• Elisabeth Porteneuve Proposal
– 6-6-6 with ccTLD at 6 directors
The cart and the horse
• Top down: ICANN decides ccTLD relation:
– ICANN sends down documents to ccTLD
– ICANN creates contract for ccTLD
• Bottom Up: ccTLD creates organizations
– ccTLD agrees on documents- sends to ICANN
– ccTLD agrees on general form of contract
– Individual ccTLD may modify as needed
• Relationship becomes peer-to-peer
• Agreements negotiated by “equals”
Incorporation Issues
• Need a name which better describes us
eg “Association of Internet Managers
for Country Codes”……
AIMcc
• Need to decide membership structure:
Regional, or Individual?
Membership Structure
Arguments for Regional
• Lightweight
• impossible getting global
consensus
• shrinks power of regions
• supported on lists by
Europeans
Arguments for Individuals
• more democratic
“one registry, one vote”
• Harder to capture
• More than just 5 members
• Flatter structure
(fewer “layers”)
Membership Structure
Argument against Regional
• requires “audit” of
regional associations
( to avoid, eg IATLD)
• Ignores differences in
“size” of internet in
regions
( Europe vs Africa)
Argument vs Individuals
• Too hard to get global
consensus, even in regions
• regional associations will
act as “lobby” groups,
anyway
• easier for new cc’s to
travel to regional meetings
Solutions
Regional
Individual
• an association of 5 region
associations-aptld,aftld..
• regional secretariats act as
executive in rotation 3 ys?
• 3 reps. from each region
form ccBoard
• An association open to all
representatives of cc
registries- .cn,.tw.,my..
• Elect 15 reps to ccBoard,
3 per region
• (possibly, elect to regional
councils)
• Use existing cc
Secretariat.
• Chair elected from region
hosting exec.
Functioning as an SO
• ccBoard acts as ccCouncil
(like the present Names Council)
• Policy issues raised from “international
assembly” like the present cctld-discuss list
• ccCouncil forms working groups to prepare
policy
• policy adopted by ccCouncil goes to Icann
Board.
Functioning as an SO (continued)
• ccCouncil elects 3-4 Icann Board directors
• cc’s meet in one day plenary at ICANN
meetings, report of working groups….
• ccCouncil meets 1/2 day, reports to Open
Forum, and to Board
• ccCouncil liaises with GAC, ALM,gDNSO,
etc
Other Issues
Subscriptions policy
• APTLD model -self select, including $0.00
• Centr model……?
• Other models…?
Membership numbers “threshold”
• do we wait for 242 to sign on…?
• Only need 5 to incorporate
Other Issues (continued)
3 or 4 Board seats?
• Negotiations need to continue with others
Conclusions
• In the absence of law, negotiation rules.
• A strong, financial viable organization for ccTLDs is
necessary for negotiation with ICANN and domain name
business interests.
• ccTLD must take the initiative, and not wait to see what
ICANN and domain name business interests offer.
• ccTLDs must get their fair share of political respect, retain
local sovereignty.
• We can do it, if we wish to.
• This is a good time to start. (ALSC – ICANN
reorganization)
Timeline
• Montevideo: 5-10 Sept. Debate on principles concludes
•
14-21 Sept. Principles published, lobbying begins
•
21 Sept. Voting on principles occurs online
•
5 Oct. Draft Articles for AIMcc posted
•
12 Oct.Voting on Articles online occurs
•
14 October AIMcc incorporated.
•
14-21 AIM Bylaws published for comment
•
22 Oct. Voting on Aim Bylaws
•
26 Oct ccSO Articles and Bylaws published
•
26 Oct-10 Nov. ccSO A+B debated on line
• Los Angeles:11 Nov. Voting to adopt byelaws (live)