1995$50

1994 Proposal Privatise

1995Proposal

I50 GTLDS

1996 IAHCMoU gTLDs

Geneva

1990Vint Cerf IAB Trade Mark

Owners(WIPO) INTA

ITU(Bob Shaw)

Foreign GovernmentsTwomey (AU)Wilkinson (EU)

20 Feb 1998: Green Paper

3 June 1998: White Paper

ICANN 13 September 1998

18 October 1998: Jon Died

25 November 1998:

DOC signs 2 year MoU

RFC.1591

.DE

.FR

.AU

.KR

242 FOJ’s

.JP

.CI

USG DOC(Becky Burr)

DOD NSF

USC.ISI

1992ISOC

Mike Roberts

.NZ

NSI (1993).com, .org, .net$1,000,000

NTIA

1995 InformationSuperhighwayIra Magaziner

U$G

IANAJON Postel

RFCs

ORSC BWG

In1998

2M

2000

18M

ICANN

The Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and NumbersPresident & CEO: Mike Roberts

November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth Board

3 PSO 3 ASO 4 VB’s 5 @ Large3 DNSO

Domain Name Support Org.

Names Council (21)

ISPS

Trade Marks

Business

Non-Commercial

Registries

Registrars

Country Code Managers

General Assembly

Protocol Support Org

ITUIETFETSI

WWWC

RIPEARIN

APNIC

At LargeMembership

176,837

GAC

Becky Burr

Bob Shaw

ChristopherWilkinson

WIPO

Others

IRP

ICANN

CHAIR: VINT CERF

4 ccSO

Address Support Org

AddressCouncil

AP-ccTLD-ICANNRelationships

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: <cctld-discuss@lists.wwtld.org>

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• an association of 5 region

associations-aptld,aftld..

• regional secretariats act as executive in rotation 3 ys?

• 3 reps. from each region form ccBoard

• Chair elected from region hosting exec.

Individual• 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.

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)