[CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles

Sat Nov 15 15:13:13 UTC 2014

Chuck,

Interesting observations you haveŠmore comments in line.

On 2014/11/15 4:39 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>Paul, 
>
>I need to comment on the following sentence that you added: "The ccTLD
>manager's receipt of IANA services is not in any way contingent upon
>membership in the ccNSO and a ccNSO member can resign at any time and
>cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO."  I want to be careful
>about treading into ccTLD space because that is not my area of expertise
>but I have concerns about the last part of your sentence.  I think I am
>fine with the first two parts but not with " cease to abide by policies
>developed by the ccNSO".  Here are my concerns:
>
>	1. The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs and my understanding
>is that their processes are open to all, not just members of the ccNSO,
>so whether a ccTLD is a member of the ccNSO or not, I think it is
>incumbent on them to participate in the policy development process; if
>they don't participate, then I don't think they have much ground for
>disagreeing with any policies that reach consensus level of support
>except in cases where their local laws might prevent them from doing so.

This is correct, indeedŠjust as some ccTLDs that are not ccNSO members are
very active within ICANN and participate in ccNSO policy processes without
being required to be ccNSO members.

>	2. I believe there needs to be some ccTLD policy making body; until a
>better alternative is agreed to besides the ccNSO, it is what we have
>right now and as long as participation in the ccTLD PDP does not require
>ccNSO membership and non-member ccTLDs are welcome to participate, then
>that process should be used.

Agreed. Of course the independence of ccTLDs (because they serve specific
countries) tends to complicates ccTLD participation within ICANN because
some ccTLDs may not be willing to be ccNSO members, but the key point here
is that no ccTLD is required to be a ccNSO member for it to participate in
ICANN processes. 

>	3. Security, stability and resiliency must be ensured for DNS names,
>otherwise all TLDs will be harmed.  That means that policies must be
>established to make sure that happens.  Giving any TLD (cc or g) the
>right to  'cease to abide by policies developed' by the applicable policy
>making body could in effect create security, stability or resiliency
>problems for everyone on the Internet.  An example in point is the PDP
>that the ccNSO had for IDN ccTLDs.  Do you think that ccTLDs should be
>able to refuse to abide by that policy?

I don't know if this is documented anywhere in ICANN's policies or any
policy pre-dating ICANN about the responsibility of ccTLD managers in
relation to the DNS as a whole, but I know very well that it is a well
accepted practice and norm among ccTLDs that the prevalence of national
laws does not give ccTLDs any right to do something that may compromise
the DNS as a whole. Accordingly, whether or not a ccTLD is a ccNSO member
or participates in ICANN processes, the ccTLD still has a fiduciary
responsibility of complying with ICANN policies that promote & support the
stability, security and resiliency of the DNS.

>	4. I think it is important to recognize that the ccNSO is the policy
>making body for ccTLDs but they do not in fact establish policies, the
>ICANN Board does. (The same of course is true for gTLDs and the GNSO.)
>
>At a minimum, I think your suggested wording needs some qualifications
>added.  But I will let all of you in the ccTLD world work this out.

Yes, we're currently working on the feedback we recently received from
+110 ccTLDs through the ccTLD survey that we ran with the regional TLD
organisations in the last 2 weeks. We should be able to present clearer
views of what ccTLDs in general require from the IANA transition process.

Regards,
Vika

>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane
>Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:47 AM
>To: Lise Fuhr
>Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles
>
>For ccTLDs, stability and local policy development in accordance with
>national law is crucial.  Diversity (within IETF standards) satisfies
>user needs.
>
>Post transition, nothing must be done by ICANN/IANA to destabilise the
>operation of legacy ccTLD Registry.
>
>ccTLDs need to have the ability to serve their respective communities.
>
>Have a good w/end all .....
>
>See you in FRA
>
>Best
>
>Paul
>
>Lise Fuhr wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we
>> have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the
>> list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>    
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>