Apologies for the delay in contributing to the debate.
CENTR intends to make a formal statement about DNSO requirements but in view
of the current time scale, I have collected comment received so far for your
information.
In respect of the DNSO draft Application and the INTA proposal, a table of
comparison has been made in respect of CENTR requirements which I have also
pasted below.
Kind regards
Fay Howard
CENTR Comment on DNSO process and draft Application to form DNSO.
Below are some initial comments on the DNSO process from CENTR participants
which will form the basis of a formal statement in due course.
Outcome of Monterrey Meeting & Resulting Draft DNSO Proposal
We welcome the open and transparent forum created by the DNSO process and the
opportunity for input afforded to all interested parties. The efforts of the
various constituencies to reach consensus are acknowledged and it is
recognized that consensus is beginning to emerge on many issue which can be
taken forward into the drafting of a DNSO proposal to be submitted to ICANN .
CENTR will to continue to participate in this process and represent the
interests of ccTLDs in Europe.
CENTR Requirements of a DNSO and Names council
In respect of DNSO fees, CENTR opposes the levying of a domain name 'tax' and
expects TLD registries to have autonomy in how they raise their contribution.
The provision of DNS services should be a matter between individual registries
and ICANN.
In view of the substantial 'at large' representation proposed for the ICANN
board, we question the need for the Names Council to also have an 'at large'
constituency.
The Names Council should have expertise to develop DNS policy and we
believe that the experience of ccTLD registries can greatly contribute to
this process.
CENTR strongly supports the desire for geographical diversity in the Names
Council and would like to see recognition of regional ccTLD organizations
within the DNSO.
CENTR was represented at the wwTLD ad hoc meeting hosted by Bernard Turcotte
in Boston on 13 November 1999 at which ORSC, CORE, NSI and other ccTLDs were
represented. CENTR supports the eleven principles that were agreed
by those present in the meeting and are set out below.
Principles agreed at the
1. The DNSO should be an open, constituency based organization.
2. The role of the Names Council, within the DNSO, should be to manage
the consensus convergence process and make recommendations to the ICANN Board
only when consensus has been achieved. Any recommendations should also advise
the Board of the details of the consensus.
3. The constituencies of the DNSO membership should select any DNSO
representatives to the ICANN Board.
4. Representation on the Names Council should be balanced between
Registries and other stakeholders.
5. The Names Council reports/recommendations to the ICANN Board should
include a full record of DNSO membership discussions and give an opportunity
for all DNSO members to record and forward their views to the ICANN Board.
6. The DNSO should not be the source of fees paid to ICANN. Fees related
to DNS activities should be raised via uniform provisions in contracts
between ICANN and registries based on criteria recommended by the DNSO.
7. The DNSO should use the net to facilitate discussions among members.
8. All DNSO members should be entitled to make proposals for
consideration by the DNSO. The Names Council may set timetables for focused
discussion of proposals for which there appears to be substantial support.
9. Minutes of the Names Council meetings will be public and the Names
Council will abide by rules similar to those of the ICANN Board for process
and
time-frame for the discussions of issues by the membership.
10. The Names Council can raise fees from the members to fund the
operation of the DNSO only.
11. The DNSO should not be a separate corporation.
TABLE OF COMPARISON
PRINCIPLE INTA PROPOSAL DNSO process
1. DNSO is open and constituency based compliant compliant
2. Role of Names Council is light weight not compliant not compliant
3. DNSO members elect 3 ICANN board members not compliant not compliant
4. Balance in representation still open not compliant
5. Transparent processes compliant compliant
6. DNSO not the source of ICANN funding not compliant not compliant
7. DNSO should use online communications compliant compliant
8. All members entitled to make proposals compliant compliant
9. Open procedures Name Council compliant compliant
10.DNSO funds only own DNSO costs not compliant not compliant
11.DNSO should not incorporate not compliant still open
To be added:
12.Focus on expertise partly compliant not compliant
13.Recognition regional ccTLD organisations not compliant not compliant
14.No At Large membership compliant not compliant