1995 $50

1. DOC(Becky Burr) NTIA U$G DOD USG NSF $1,000,000 1995 InformationSuperhighwayIra Magaziner NSI (1993).com, .org, .net USC.ISI RFCs IANAJON Postel 20 Feb 1998: Green Paper 1995$50 1990Vint Cerf IAB 3 June 1998: White Paper RFC.1591 Trade Mark Owners(WIPO) INTA ICANN 13 September 1998 .NZ 1994 Proposal Privatise 1992ISOCMike Roberts .FR ITU(Bob Shaw) ORSC BWG 1995ProposalI50 GTLDS .DE 2M .AU In1998 Foreign GovernmentsTwomey (AU)Wilkinson (EU) 18 October 1998: Jon Died 1996 IAHCMoU gTLDsGeneva .KR 18M .JP 25 November 1998: DOC signs 2 year MoU .CI 2000 242 FOJ’s

2. 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

3. AP-ccTLD-ICANNRelationships The Money The Power The Credibility and The Balance

4. Where is the Money? • 30 Million names in .com, .org, .net • New registrations thru July, 2001: 3,123,612 11 million in ccTLDs…the future? • VeriSign has about 50% share as registrar • Over 100,000 “testbed” IDNS • Increasing Trade name protection in ccTLD • However: 180 ccTLDs under 50,000 names

5. Where is the Power • Facilitating Trade: All countries • Access Internet users as a market for domain names. • Access to consumers for advertising and e-commerce. • ccTLD diversity, lends Legitimacy, 244 ccs • Regional ccTLD Associations (some in formation only) • North America • Asia Pacific • European Union • Latin America • Africa and Middle East

6. Need global body to represent • cc Internet Managers, and their LICs. • Taking into account: • Best Practices, • RFC 1591 • Governments Separate Incorporation = legal status can enter contracts, issue invoices • can be tax free

7. ccTLD Issues • International Domain Names • New gTLDs and their impact • Procedure for update of IANA database • Contract with ICANN • Pressure to include “universal” UDRP • Representation Level in ICANN • Financial contributions to ICANN

8. Needs to be outside ICANN • To negotiate common issues with ICANN; • a collective trade association - • strong can aid the weak, the early can protect the later; • because ICANN staff requested a “peer;” • because there are LIC issues which don’t affect ICANN

9. The “peer”organisation Date sent:Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:12:35 GMT From: "Antony Van Couvering" To: <cctld-discuss@lists.wwtld.org> Hi, Here is the transcript I made of this morning's session Nov. 1, 1999) between Josh Elliott of IANA and the ccTLD managers. Louis Touton,counsel for ICANN, and Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's staff person, also attended, and indeed answered many of the questions.

10. The “peer” cont’d. Andrew McLaughlin - Relationship between ICANN and IANA. I am the only staff person at ICANN. First task at ICANN has been to try to rationalize the relationship and the gTLDs. Recognize that doing the same for ccTLDs is the next priority. AM, MR, and Louis Touton will talk to anyone about this. ICANN hoping to establish a relationship of peers.

11. The “peer” cont’d. Dennis Jennings- Top 5 issues of concern to CENTR members: (1) Agreement for root services (2) Relationship between ccTLDs and ICANN (3) Best practices (4) Change of ccTLD managers (5) Funding. On the second point,I am heartened by your comments for a peer-to-peer relationship. Quite a number of ccTLDs are thinking of a ccTLD organization separately from the ccTLD constituency within the DNSO.

12. The “peer” cont’d Andrew M. IANA's policies are well articulated now, we need changes. There is no way for the ccTLDs to talk to ICANN as one body. Outside of the DNSO, there needs to be a peer relationship between ICANN and ccTLDs outside of the DNSO.

13. Why Outside? Issues of : re-delegation of DRP of content of 2ld’s, pricing, etc are outside ICANN’s mandate

14. Why Outside • Because: Intellectual property interests, the GAC the NCDNH, and Verisign believe they should be able to shape cc policy SECURITY - ICANN may fail.

15. BENEFITS OF BEING WITHIN ICANN • Cooperation with IANA • Cooperation with g-TLDs • Cooperation with ASO, PSO, DNSO,… • Adding political credibility to Icann • Facilitating funding • Cohesive global internet development

16. NEEDS NOT TO BE A DNSO CONSTITUENCY • g-TLD focus • NSI battles • udrp • Verisign -commercial only focus • No concept of LIC, service, or government • Stockholm communique

17. NEEDS TO BE A SUPPORT ORGANISATION • The ICANN bylaws allow further SO’s • there is no better alternative in the bylaws • SO’s create policy, for Board to implement • The Board is “obliged” to follow an SO’s policy • Board representation ensured.

18. NEED AN OUTSIDE ORGANISATION WHICH AGREES TO SERVE AS THE CCSO • This model works- see the PSO • It has considerable staff support • It has some Board support • It has majority DNSO support.

19. The Credibility and Balance • ICANN needs ccTLD to provide credibility. • Without ccTLD ICANN is clearly US-centric • ICANN will attempt to make individual deals with strong countries one by one. • In some cases ICANN may succeed with this. • This could increase “Internet colonialism” • A strong ccTLD is the key to balance of money, power, credibility.

20. NEED AGREEMENT IN MONTEVIDEO • 1. Incorporation outside ICANN • 2. Willingness to sign MoU as ccSO

21. New ICANN Structures? • ALSC report possibilities • Directors 6-6-6 Tech, Providers, Users • ASO-PSO-6, DNSO 6, At-Large + Ncom 6 • Mike Roberts Proposal • ccTLD 2 directors, gTLD 2 directors • Elisabeth Porteneuve Proposal • 6-6-6 with ccTLD at 6 directors

22. The cart and the horse • Top down: ICANN decides ccTLD relation: • ICANN sends down documents to ccTLD • ICANN creates contract for ccTLD • Bottom Up: ccTLD creates organizations • ccTLD agrees on documents- sends to ICANN • ccTLD agrees on general form of contract • Individual ccTLD may modify as needed • Relationship becomes peer-to-peer • Agreements negotiated by “equals”

23. Incorporation Issues • Need a name which better describes us eg “Association of Internet Managers for Country Codes”…… AIMcc • Need to decide membership structure: Regional, or Individual?

24. Arguments for Regional Lightweight impossible getting global consensus shrinks power of regions supported on lists by Europeans Arguments for Individuals more democratic “one registry, one vote” Harder to capture More than just 5 members Flatter structure (fewer “layers”) Membership Structure

25. Argument against Regional requires “audit” of regional associations ( to avoid, eg IATLD) Ignores differences in “size” of internet in regions ( Europe vs Africa) Argument vs Individuals Too hard to get global consensus, even in regions regional associations will act as “lobby” groups, anyway easier for new cc’s to travel to regional meetings Membership Structure

26. Regional an association of 5 region associations-aptld,aftld.. regional secretariats act as executive in rotation 3 ys? 3 reps. from each region form ccBoard Chair elected fromregion hosting exec. Individual An association open to all representatives of cc registries- .cn,.tw.,my.. Elect 15 reps to ccBoard, 3 per region (possibly, elect to regional councils) Use existing cc Secretariat. Solutions

27. Functioning as an SO • ccBoard acts as ccCouncil (like the present Names Council) • Policy issues raised from “international assembly” like the present cctld-discuss list • ccCouncil forms working groups to prepare policy • policy adopted by ccCouncil goes to Icann Board.

28. Functioning as an SO (continued) • ccCouncil elects 3-4 Icann Board directors • cc’s meet in one day plenary at ICANN meetings, report of working groups…. • ccCouncil meets 1/2 day, reports to Open Forum, and to Board • ccCouncil liaises with GAC, ALM,gDNSO, etc

29. Other Issues Subscriptions policy • APTLD model -self select, including $0.00 • Centr model……? • Other models…? Membership numbers “threshold” • do we wait for 242 to sign on…? • Only need 5 to incorporate

30. Other Issues (continued) 3 or 4 Board seats? • Negotiations need to continue with others

31. Conclusions • In the absence of law, negotiation rules. • A strong, financial viable organization for ccTLDs is necessary for negotiation with ICANN and domain name business interests. • ccTLD must take the initiative, and not wait to see what ICANN and domain name business interests offer. • ccTLDs must get their fair share of political respect, retain local sovereignty. • We can do it, if we wish to. • This is a good time to start. (ALSC – ICANN reorganization)

32. Timeline • Montevideo: 5-10 Sept. Debate on principles concludes • 14-21 Sept. Principles published, lobbying begins • 21 Sept. Voting on principles occurs online • 5 Oct. Draft Articles for AIMcc posted • 12 Oct.Voting on Articles online occurs • 14 October AIMcc incorporated. • 14-21 AIM Bylaws published for comment • 22 Oct. Voting on Aim Bylaws • 26 Oct ccSO Articles and Bylaws published • 26 Oct-10 Nov. ccSO A+B debated on line • Los Angeles:11 Nov. Voting to adopt byelaws (live)