Review of CENTR’s dialogue with the GAC

Emily Taylor, Solicitor

Company Secretary, Nominet UK

Session plan

• Recap on progress to date

• Review of common ground and outstanding issues

• CENTR’s comments on December draft

• Comments on February discussion draft

• What happens next?

Progress to date

• 1 December 2003: GAC circulates discussion draft for comment

• 16 December 2003: Meeting between European GAC representatives and CENTR, Brussels

• 16 January 2004: CENTR’s response to draft

• 13 February 2004: GAC circulates revised draft

• 20 February 2004: CENTR GA, discussion with Martin Boyle

Common Ground

• Common interest in a stable, efficient IANA function

• The existing GAC Principles are unsatisfactory

– Lack of consultation

• Subsidiarity: ccTLD issues to be resolved at local level where possible

What are the GAC Principles for?

– Not a replacement for national legislation– Not binding rules– Not a contract

• A non-binding, best practice framework?

• A dialogue between equals?

The December draft: CENTR members’ comments

Overview

• Draft a significant improvement on the current GAC Principles

• Appreciate the opportunity to contribute to an improved framework

Overview (II)

• Outstanding concerns:

– Clarify the purpose of the document throughout.– Consider use that has been made of current GAC

Principles– Distinguish ICANN and IANA functions

• Strive for minimum necessary, lowest common denominator approach

General comments

• Suggest a review of structure, title and purpose in light of changed objectives.

• Key issues for the document to address:

– Limited role for ICANN re: ccTLDs– ccTLDs administered out of territory– Efficient performance of IANA function

General comments (II)

• Terminology: “delegation” “re-delegation”

• Diversity of ccTLDs

• Tight regulation by governments neither possible nor desirable

Summary of detailed comments

• Whole of section 7 as drafted

• Section 10: ICANN’s function, and ccTLDs’ contribution to funds

– Broader function than in current GAC Principles (eg data escrow)

• “Contractual terms” between ICANN and ccTLD Registry at section 9

• Section 5 meaning and implications of “public resource”

Summary of detailed comments (II)

• Role of ccTLD (section 4)

– Duty to serve “global Internet community”?– Prohibition on sub-contracting– Prohibition on assertion of IPRs

• ccNSO

The February 2004 draft

Overall comments

• Positive progress

• Many of CENTR’s comments accepted or acknowledged, in particular:

– Replacement of section 7– Improvements to section 10 :

• Focussing on the costs of administering the IANA function

• Removal of data escrow requirement

Open issues

• Terminology and title

• Government/ccTLD relationship

• IANA function

• ccNSO

• Public right, public duty, and internet identity

Terminology and Title

• Section 3 of discussion draft

• paragraphs 10, 14, 27-29 of CENTR response

• Title at odds with non-binding, best practice guidelines

• Delegation, re-delegation, designation

– Not mere pedantry

– At odds with what happens

– Implication of authority

Government/ccTLD relationship

• Section 9 of discussion draft

• Paragraphs 58 – 65 of CENTR’s response

• What is the significance of “newly designated”?

• Inclusion of “performance clauses, opportunity for review, process for revocation” – prescriptive?

• Commitment to global internet community?

• Intellectual property rights in the country code itself?

• Prohibition on sub-contracting?

IANA function

• Section 10 of discussion draft

• Paragraphs 27, 66-78 of CENTR’s response

• Two distinct functions:

– Guaranteeing availability of root servers– Maintaining the ccTLD database

• Root servers: no contracts in place, but status quo works

• ccTLD database:

– Formal changes– Change of Registry operator

ccNSO

• Preamble, section 4.10, 10.2.6

• Paragraphs 22, 40, and 82 of CENTR’s response

• Several references removed, but remains in (new)4.8

• Not yet established; membership smaller than eg CENTR

Public right, public duty, and internet identity

• Preamble of discussion draft

• Paragraph 21 of CENTR response

• ccTLDs not a symbol of national identity

• Implication of public sector / regulation / government oversight.

What happens next?

• Discussion today

• Further detailed comments from ccTLDs?