1995 $ Proposal Privatise 1995 Proposal I50 GTLDS 1996 IAHC MoU gTLDs Geneva 1990 Vint Cerf IAB Trade Mark Owners (WIPO) INTA ITU (Bob Shaw) Foreign Governments Twomey (AU) Wilkinson (EU) 20 Feb 1998: Green Paper 3 June 1998: White Paper ICANN 13 September 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) DODNSF USC.ISI 1992 ISOC Mike Roberts.NZ NSI (1993).com,.org,.net $1,000,000 NTIA 1995 Information Superhighway Ira Magaziner U$G IANA JON Postel RFCs ORSCBWG In M M

ICANN The Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and Numbers President & CEO: Mike Roberts November Member Virgin Birth Board 3 PSO3 ASO4 VB’s Large 3 DNSO Domain Name Support Org. Names Council (21) ISPS Trade Marks Business Non-Commercial Registries Registrars Country Code Managers General Assembly Protocol Support Org ITU IETF ETSI WWWC RIPE ARIN APNIC At Large Membership 176,837 GAC Becky Burr Bob Shaw Christopher Wilkinson WIPO Others IRP ICANN CHAIR: VINT CERF 4 ccSO Address Support Org Address Council

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, 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 :12:35 GMT From: "Antony Van Couvering" To: 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 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 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 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)