ICANN The Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and Numbers President & CEO: Mike Roberts

1. ICANN IRP CHAIR: VINT CERF 4 ccSO 3 DNSO 3 PSO 3 ASO 4 VB’s GAC 5 @ Large Domain Name Support Org. Protocol Support Org Address Support Org At LargeMembership176,837 Becky BurrBob ShawChristopherWilkinsonWIPOOthers Names Council (21) AddressCouncil ISPS ITUIETFETSIWWWC Trade Marks Business RIPEARINAPNIC Non-Commercial Registries Registrars Country Code Managers General Assembly ICANNThe Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and Numbers President & CEO: Mike Roberts November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth Board

2. ICANN CHAIR: VINT CERF * Non Com 5 Liaison 8 “At Large” 2 GNSO 2 ASO Generic Support Org Address Support Org Standing committees g Registries g Registrars c Registries RIR’s ISP’s Large business users Small business users IP organisations Academic/Public Consumer groups Individual Nameholders IAB/IETF TAC GAC 4 unspecified Selected by the Nominating Committee* Names Council (16) AddressCouncil TACIAB/IETFRSSACSACGAC ISPS Registries Voting members commit to ICANN policy development Registrars RIPEARINAPNICLACNICtbd Non-Commercial International Council (number unspecified) Trade Marks Business Country code Support Org Others ? General Assembly ICANNThe Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers President & CEO: Stuart Lynn Board seats 2 CCSO

3. The “Names Council” ISP Business ISP Business Registries Non Commercial Registries Non Commercial Registrars IP Registrars IP Elected by Nom Com (voting) Elected by Nom Com (voting) Elected by Nom Com (voting) ERC PROPOSAL Chair Selected by the Council Providers Users GAC Appointer (non-voting)

4. ERC PROPOSAL The Country Names Council Unspecified number of regionally voting Councillors Unspecified number of regionally voting Councillors 1/3 of Council by : - appointments by Nominating Committee (voting), - 1 GAC appointee (non-voting)

5. 3 seats elected to ICANN Board Officers: VP’s for Works, L&R, Membership, F&A Secretariat Regional associations by contract LACTLD APTLD AFTLD CENTR NATLD Latin America Asia Pacific African European North America Member ccTLDS International Council15 seats: 3 per Region 15 seats: 3 per Region Chair elected by Council International Assembly Interface with other SO’s

6. ccTLD Response to the Blueprint .The cctld members meeting in Bucharest Romania on 25th June have considered the Blueprint issued on 21st June. This response concentrates on the ccTLD aspects of the structure of the new ICANN proposed by the ICANN Board Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC). Due to the time available, the ccTLDs do not in this response address all the details of the Blueprint document and lack of comment should not be taken as approval.

7. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • .The ccTLDs are in favour of a number of aspects of the Blueprint, including the formation of an SO for developing policy on cctld domain name matters, and the provision of staffing.

8. ccTLD Resposnse to Blueprint • In the spirit of “bottom up” development, the cctlds prefer to continue using the established name for this SO, (“ccSO”) which is used in all of our documentation, website domain name, committee names and lists, and which reflects the cultural and historical language of the internet.

9. ccTLD response to Blueprint

10. ccTLD Responsse to Blueprint • 5 The board should not make policy in those areas for which a support organization exists. The function of the board is to receive and respond to policy that has been developed by those organisations specifically intended, designed, populated and staffed for the express purpose of developing policy.

11. ccTLD response to Blueprint • It is not the board’s job to make policy, but rather to ensure that policy developed is timely, useful, appropriate, and compliant with the processes of the respective SO providing it.

12. ccTLD Responsse to Blueprint Therefore the Board could not adopt any policy binding on ccTLDs that had not been through this process.

13. ccTLD Response To Blueprint • The Board may initiate policy discussions in an SO, and might provide guidance and encouragement at various times in the SO’s development process but it cannot be the Board’s role to make policy in the absence of SO agreement.

14. ccTLD response to Blueprint

15. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • It will be a part of the ccSO function to characterise issues as either local or global.

16. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • The ccTLDs are committed to funding those overheads of the corporation directly related to ccTLD activities, for example the IANA services, and in addition are willing to make a fair contribution to ICANN for its more general overheads. While the level of funding is not a requisite part of the re-structuring debate, we make the following points:

17. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • No cross subsidy of non-ccTLD activities • ccSO approves the Icann Budget, then guarantees ccTLD funding to ICANN • Allocation of funding between ccTLDs done by ccSO

18. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • The ccTLDs are not prepared to have any agency, including the Nominating Committee, appoint members to its Council, the “International Council”. We understand that the purpose of these appointments is to provide the council with individuals having the attributes described as desirable for Directors, and with the additional qualification of an “interest in global names policy”. Those attributes are present in the members of the ccSO, and will be available to the council, and to the Board by way of the ccSO’s appointment of directors.

19. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • We understand the committee’s view is that such appointments will provide: • 1)reporting to the Board on minority view points, • )facilitation in case of deadlock or other stoppages, and • )leadership • )representation in what is, otherwise, a monolithic structure

20. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • The ccTLDs will work with the committee to demonstrate that those concerns are already dealt with by the ccTLDs and their proposed ccSO structure (a copy of the draft structure for the SO, and its Council are attached)

21. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • The ccTLDs are prepared to work in close liaison with the GAC, in relation to those matters of interest to governments. We do not believe that an appointed liaison officer will be an efficient way of arranging that…. We are committed to working with the GAC to improve liaison, and point instead to the first joint ccTLD-GAC workshop held in Bucharest

22. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • Each SO should have 3 seats on the Board. …..and for ICANN to have credibility as an international organisation, those interests should be represented on the board….. that number greatly facilitates fair geographic representation. With two directors, at any given time, three ccTLD regions are unrepresented

23. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • We suggest that the Board seats in question be re-allocated from those appointed by the Nominating Committee, reducing those to 5 (1 per geographic region) rather than creating any additional seats. This would mean that there would be 3 directors from each SO (a total of 9) providing specialist input, 10 directors from the wider community (5 voting and 5 non-voting) providing general, public interest perspectives and the CEO.

24. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • We have reservations about the concept and composition of the Nominating Committee, and ICANN’s ability to find and select members in an open transparent and contestable manner in the time frame. If there is to be such a body, it is essential for the reputation of the Corporation that there be no allegation that it was not created under conditions of the greatest fairness and openness.

25. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • The ccTLD representation in the Nominating Committee is disproportionately small (1 of 19 seats). We recommend that should a Nominating Committee be created there should 1 representative of the ccTLD mangers and 5 regionally selected representatives of local internet communities, with the ccSO recommending candidates to the Board

26. ccTLD Response to Blueprint • The ccTLDs recommend that there be no extension of the current 2 term limit for directors. • The ccTLDs look forward to working with the ERC to develop a transition plan and schedule that can be implemented.

27. Notice of Policy Request Issue List automatically created by Secretariat/VP Notified. Specified period. Remits for further work Policy Development Process : ccSO (see www.wwtld.org/documents) International Council Vice President, Works (Policy Development) GNSO International Assembly An Open List for the discussion of ccTLD matters, announcements, Minutes etc Rapporteur provides synthesis Implement as Policy Council reviews Establish a Working Group (plus outside Representatives)

28. Developments since Bucharest;the Board’s instruction to ERC. • Board in Romania adopts Blueprint, saying meeting in Bucharest had provided “additional feedback”... • Public Forum had identified the following important issues…geo/cultural diversity…At Large Committee creation…Nom.Com to be balanced…collaborate with critical infrastructure providers….(cont’d)

29. Developments since Bucharest;the board’s instruction • …and the technical community to further the establishment of effective working relationships • “…ensure that Icann’s policy development processes enhance and promote a transparent bottom up process”

30. Documents issued by ICANN since Bucharest • 15 July Status Report on Implementation • 26 July Names Policy AG - Preliminary • 29 July Accountability AG -Preliminary • 1 August First Interim Implementation • 2 September : 2nd Interim Implementation • 19 August ALAC AG Reports

31. Developments since Bucharest • 21 August Adcom conference call with ERC recomends cc AG • further discussion with Adcom promised • last contact by ERC with adcom • 23 August ccTLD group call with ERC - discusses cc AG • No further contact

32. Developments since Bucharest • 21 August NP AG reports on NPDP • 2 September 2nd Interin Implementation • 18 September ERC announces formation of ccAG

33. Developments since Bucharest • 20 September : Renewal of MoU between US Government and ICANN • 20 September : Statement from USG on Extension

34. Documents issued by ICANN • 2 October : Final Implementation Report First re-drafted Bylaws GNSO policy development process annexed • 4 October : Progress report from ccNSO Assistance Group

35. Documents issued by ICANN • 9 October : RIRs deliver “Blueprint for Evolution of Address Management” • 11 October : First Supplemental Implementation Report • 12 October : Fourth Status Report (on RIRs)

36. Documents issued by ICANN • 22 October : ccNSO Update to ERC • 23 October : Second Supplemental Implementation Report Second Re-draft of proposed Bylaws