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
APTLD
16 May 2003
*************************************************************************************************