Sunday, June 22nd 2003 ----- * Report ICANN to GAC - Internal Organization - new staff, proposed budget - introduction: business like structure of the office - vice president for ccnso and vice president for business operations - general manager technical operations, still to be http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jun03.htm - budget: - more staff - 30.000 $ for nomcom - travel cost gnso council five members of alac - WIPO II Recommondations - board has followed the gac recommondation to form a working group - membership of that group still discussed ? France: create a committee was the idea to check practical implications first two paragraphs of our advise were not to be taken in consideration if not, please explain us why the board didnīt take that gac advise ! Paul: Was not inconsistent, we just took your advise to the working group (comment from my side: which does not exist yet) ? When is the group formed ! in July - ASO and Address Registries - IDN Implementation - Update on developments - Commitment to guidelines and deployment underway - .info, .org, .cn, .tw, .jp - additional participants - technical coordination and commitment to principes essential - GTLD next steps - new tld program status update - consultations, reports, input sponsored / tld rfp - sebastian will report about the lessions learned ?! - At-Large Committee - formation of at large groups - for discussion at icann public forum and adoption by the icann board - Geographic Reasons - July 2000 definition based UN Statistics Commission - review of that definition - Indepdent third pary review - icnan bylaws mandate icann establish process for independent third-party review of board actions alleged to be inconsistent the articles of the bylaws - Whois Workhsop - welcomed development based on interest of many - look forward to excahnge of views, identificatin of issues - whois databases are vast, numerous and capture the interest of many diverse entitites Questions: ? NIUE: Policy of redelagation ! in progress, not a real problem, bla - ccNSO Formation propably most important point - Alexandro Pisanti and Hans Kraaijenbrink report on this issue - ccNSO Timeline - issue of cctlds and not appropriate for dnso-santiago 1999 - cctlds call for sparate representation, stockholm 2001 - presidents report calls for sepearate so for cctlds feb 2002 - blueprint erc june 2002 - in response erc ccnso assistace group sep 2002 - cctlds gac and other paritpicated - ten ccnso ag posting for comment by community - original time-lime aimed for completino in dec 2002 extended twice, and reserved for phsycal board meet at cctld request - ccnso ag compiled recommondations 26 feb 2003 bylaw language ccNSO bylaw revision is relevant for the implementation of blueprint - ccNSO has purpose to engage in activities specifically - develop policy recommondations to the ICANN board - proposed bylwas reflect culmuniatino of intensive analysis and consultations and work since september 2002 - erc recommendations reflect the ccnso ag recommendations - cmments received and erc responses ERC reposnse to the GAc recommendations 29.05.2003 erc reposnse to comments received ofn the ERCs ccnSO - do not clearly identify the role of the ccnso reposnse to ICANN tols with cctlds should be limited to issues relating to stability erc reflecs this concern and has included that in the reponse to comment - comment rgeneral assumption that policy making reponsiblitiles lie at the local lvel (telling the gac to get involved at the local level) - iCNAN board should consult with gac on matters relativ to pilib cpolicy including cctlds - this concern addressed in the recommondatins and reflexcted in the bylaws - comment global policy limitation erc addresses this in framework on scope - comment no need for inclusion of the scope matrix erc reflects this bla - comment: acceptable fopr the ccnso to develp non-bionding recommondations erc notes that ccnso can do additional activies, including non-binding if it wishes - comment: delegation and redelagtion issues erc notes that individual cases of redelation are matters for tht respective parites, not the ccnso, general policy may be issue the ccnso if within framwork and scope - ccNSO may choose not to use ICANN staff support through the bylaws - abinding by global policy is not required of the voting members in other SOīs - ERC noted that ccNSO differs in composition, it has one consittuence, members of other SOīs have formal relationship with ICANN - comment: represretaion based on iana database, if contested redelgation, both parties shoudl be able to attend - erc speficies in response to comment aht does not think this is a problem are in priciple meetings are open comments: finfnalcial framework of the ccnso structure erc notes that the financial comment: docuemtary evidecne tha ticann adopted policy breaches local suctom, suggest appeal mechanism erc belives aconcercerns are addressed in the exemption mechanisms - grounds for exemption includie (Hans) we created a ccNSO with a big number of ccTLD that is happy blablabla respects the national souverinity, is very fine blabla propaganda bullshit ccTLD manager must feel responsibility to the global stability to the Internet ? (UK): GAC opinion had been ignored for significant points starting point is that ccTLD community is important and difficult relationship with ICANN, as increasive as possible, as many ccTLD as possible involved in the process, autocratic wording having to agreed policies - certain to agree, or to agree to pay fees, where it is undefinied what the fees are binding policies without the basic premise, in what respect they are needed terminology of "best practise" we could achive the consensus of the community concern: binding policy can be used to exclude people from the process ressources to partipicate not available for developing countries included in the wording: aiming the consensus but you donīt say that, hiddin behind binding policy and use agreed crowds as near to the citizen as possible, same think needs to be applied here this should be a support group, but its not written in that way, it is written autocratic, wording should be softened so larger community vint cerf cooperative and coordination draft bylaws is not like that ? (Denmark) principles agreed in shanghai where not followed gac advise should be followed by the board and if not board should give reasons so gac can consult if that is ok or advise needs to be specified ! Hans: UK violates GAC principle, stability of the internet Bla important european ccTLDs have been contributing to that process the word binding, ccNSO under full control of ccTLD managers new bylaws more formal relation between icann board and gac ? (france) 1. scope not definied satisfictaroy 2. membership definition, 3. binding nature icann contracts vs. national law / ccTLD problems *ARE* very fundamental ? (niue) niue would like to see the ccNSO as inclusive as possible some issues with that: ccNSO policy might be against local policy concern amplified when looking that ICANN policies can be capured by other policy ! Alex: "the inclusiveness can not be more" (someone leaving the room, smashing the door loudly) ? (european commission): ask about the framework chair 1. feel that we must succeed, we need a successfull ccNSO another oppurtinity tomorrow in the working group positive output would be a good idea ----- * Presentation from the NOMCOM - linda wilson presents criteria, process and result of the nomcom