1 / 21

Review of CENTR’s dialogue with the GAC

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?.

eagan-flowers
Download Presentation

Review of CENTR’s dialogue with the GAC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of CENTR’s dialogue with the GAC Emily Taylor, Solicitor Company Secretary, Nominet UK

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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?

  6. The December draft: CENTR members’ comments

  7. Overview • Draft a significant improvement on the current GAC Principles • Appreciate the opportunity to contribute to an improved framework

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. General comments (II) • Terminology: “delegation” “re-delegation” • Diversity of ccTLDs • Tight regulation by governments neither possible nor desirable

  11. 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”

  12. 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

  13. The February 2004 draft

  14. 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

  15. Open issues • Terminology and title • Government/ccTLD relationship • IANA function • ccNSO • Public right, public duty, and internet identity

  16. 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

  17. 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?

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. What happens next? • Discussion today • Further detailed comments from ccTLDs?

More Related