[Chapter-delegates] ccTLD management

Tue May 14 10:01:17 PDT 2013

Hi all,

This discussion has been most interesting. In New Zealand we 
(InternetNZ) operate the .nz ccTLD. There is no ISOC Chapter in NZ, 
probably because InternetNZ also undertakes a considerable amount of 
work to pursue objectives that are very similar to ISOC's. These 
activities are funded mainly through domain name fees. InternetNZ is an 
open membership organisation and for around US$15 per year, anyone in 
the world can be a member, and therefore vote for the governing council 
representatives. There are no special seats at the governance table, but 
usually it is a healthy cross-section of the multistakeholder community. 
All policy decisions are principles based and developed in true MS 
methodologies of bottom up, consensus based, inclusive and transparent 
decision making, whether it is a policy applicable to the operation of 
the ccTLD or a broader public policy item. InternetNZ supports ISOC 
through being an organisational member, and encourages other ccTLDs to 
also belong and participate in the ISOC process. InternetNZ is also a 
supporter of the ICANN model.

Personally, I attend to InternetNZ's international affairs, and am vice 
chair of the ccNSO Council in ICANN, and a board member of the ISOC 
board of trustees, and also within ICANN I chair a working group that is 
building a "Framework of Interpretation" seeking to provide colour and 
depth to the policies for delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. Part of 
this work analysed all ICANN decisions on delegations, redelegations and 
retirements of ccTLDs and substantial progress has been made on the 
Framework (using RFC1591 and the GAC Principles on Delegation and 
Redelegation of ccTLDs as the primary policies and guidelines).

This interesting discussion raises several issues, and highlights that 
there are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and there are various models 
that appear to suit individual country requirements. There is a strong 
bond between many ccTLD operators to uphold the requirements laid out in 
RFC 1591.

The original question arose over .ee. I note that .ee is not a member of 
the ccNSO in ICANN (http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm) and I 
don't recall any GAC participation by Estonia either. Perhaps 
encouraging them to review their model and compliance with RFC1591 
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt) and the 2005 GAC Principles 
<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278844/ccTLD_Principles_0.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1312385141000&api=v2> 
might be a useful starting point. Some further information might be 
gleaned from my Working Groups documents at
<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm>

Cheers

Keith Davidson

On 14/05/2013 7:33 p.m., Victor Ndonnang wrote:
> Dear Elver,
> Dear Alejandro,
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for pointing out this issue of ccTLD management. Thanks once
> again to Dr. Alejandro for your clarification and very relevant
> comments. We exchanged some mails on this same issue about a month ago
> and the conclusion of our discussion left me unsatisfied. My question
> was: What happen when the Local Internet Community (LIC) is unhappy
> about the management of their ccTLD? It seems like IANA can only
> intervene when things go wrong technically? What can ICANN do? And What
> can the Global Internet Community do too?
>
> Basically the ccTLD has to be managed or governed in the inclusive
> manner for the interest of the Internet community (local and global).
> But sadly, It is not the case in my country (.cm) and in many others
> countries. We are trying locally to change the situation but it is not
> easy because the entity (National Agency) which is running our ccTLD now
> received its mandate from the President of the Republic and really don't
> care about us: The users and the "Local Internet Community". It is not
> easy to fight against the State or the political power but we will not
> give-up until we get satisfaction because for me the .cm ccTLD is not
> the property of the state of Cameroon as they use to say (may I right or
> wrong?).
>
> As Dr. Alejandro said, there are some ccTLDs registries which apply the
> multistakeholder model in their structure and governance. I can add to
> that list AFNIC (registry of the .fr) which is for me one of the most
> inclusive and broadly representative ccTLD Registry. For example, I'm
> member of "College International " of AFNIC even I'm not a French
> citizen and I'm not living in France and ISOC France is regulary
> represented in Its board of Directors (Our colleagues from France can
> tell us more).
>
> Finally to answer Elver's Question: ISOC Cameroon Chapter has no voice
> in the management of Cameroon ccTLD (.cm). We are working locally to
> change the situation and we also expect to support of the Global
> Internet Community and ICANN.
>
> Thanks to all for your contributions.
> Best regards,
> Victor Ndonnang.
>
> On 13/05/2013 19:01, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
>> Elver,
>>
>> RFC 1591 is your primary guidance here (its flip side has already made
>> our dear colleague Victor Ndonnang sad, for it's hard to apply in the
>> way you mean in cases like yours or his in Cameroon ie .CM.)
>>
>> ccTLD responsibilities are double, toward the Local Internet Community
>> (LIC) and toward the global (GIC.) The LIC part is mostly decided
>> in-country as some have painfully learned. ICANN has to be extremely
>> careful in not demanding action or information beyond its mandate -
>> actually, IANA's mandate, which is even more tightly constrained.
>>
>> That said, I think we can help you without meddling by providing, or
>> assisting you in getting access to, examples of ccTLDs which are run
>> having in their administrative structures a Board of Directors formed
>> broadly in the community, a Consultative or Advisory Board or
>> Committee which again is broadly representative, informed and
>> multistakeholder, or similar.
>>
>> The ones that come to mind first in this sense among us, with some
>> variations of course, are CIRA (Canada), Nominet (UK), and CGI
>> (Brazil.) They also happen to have some relationship with ISOC. Then
>> yo'll also have cases like Mexico and many others, some of which have
>> already sent messages to this thread, in which at some point at least
>> an ISOC Chapter, the ccTLD, people who attend the RIR meetings, and
>> IETF participants were the core of the evolution of the Internet
>> ecosystem in the country and still are active and consulted.
>>
>> Additonal sources of information (you of course know some of them)
>> will be CENTR for European ccTLDs, LACTLD for those in Latin America
>> and the Caribbean, etc.
>>
>> Hope this helps and that others continue to provide information here!
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>
>>
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>       Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> Facultad de Química UNAM
>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>
>>
>>
>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>>
>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>> [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Elver Loho
>> [elver.loho at gmail.com]
>> Enviado el: lunes, 13 de mayo de 2013 09:57
>> Hasta: Demi Getschko
>> CC: Chapter Delegates
>> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ccTLD management
>>
>> Thank you all for contributing on the ccTLD question :)
>>
>> The context for my question is the situation in Estonia, where it's a
>> crazy multi-year story with all sorts of twists and turns and to do it
>> any kind of justice it would take many pages. But the short version is
>> that our organization was originally established to protect the
>> citizenry from the ccTLD management, things got better as a result of
>> our 2+ year constant political and public struggle, but we're still
>> not entirely satisfied.
>>
>> I wonder if there is any kind of international pressure that ISOC
>> could bring on the Estonian ccTLD to, for example, appoint someone
>> from ISOC Estonia to the board of the .ee ccTLD management. Especially
>> considering how the .ee redelegation process is still going on, so
>> ICANN might be able to make some recommendations in this regard.
>>
>> Best,
>> Elver
>>
>> elver.loho at gmail.com
>> +372 5661 6933
>> skype: elver.loho
>>
>>
>> On 13 May 2013 17:38, Demi Getschko <demi at nic.br> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Just to add a little bit on this issue, situation on ISOC-Br is quite
>>> similar as that Jordi described for ISOC-Cat. The Brazilian registry
>>> do not
>>> transfer funds to the chapter. NIC.br is just an organizational
>>> member as
>>> others: same obligations and rights. BTW, ISOC.br chapter achieved
>>> self-sustentability some months ago and we hope it will continue to
>>> evolute
>>> this way.
>>> best
>>> demi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/13/2013 08:07 AM, Jordi Iparraguirre wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> ISOC-CAT was one key player building up the community that backed up
>>>> the
>>>> .cat application and it is currently member of the Board at .cat (one
>>>> amongst 13 members). Our 1st term finishes this summer but mandate
>>>> should be
>>>> renewed as we are the only member of the board representing Internet
>>>> users
>>>> (of 13 councilors).
>>>>
>>>> As member of ISOC-CAT since 1996 and the director of .cat
>>>> (2006-2013) I've
>>>> strived to bring into .cat registry the "Internet is for everyone"
>>>> principle
>>>> and to create a culture for a community oriented Registry. Registry
>>>> community programs and communication always pointed out that .cat was a
>>>> "common" and we (the .cat registry) where working for and on behalf
>>>> of the
>>>> community and reinvesting profit into the community (programs with
>>>> schools,
>>>> dropped prices, whois personal data protection, etc).
>>>>
>>>> To avoid conflicts of interest, there wasn't transfer of money from the
>>>> Registry to the Chapter. Registry just provided logistic support
>>>> (meeting
>>>> room space, etc) or cooperated in the translation of the ISOC-Argentina
>>>> "IPv6 para todos" book.
>>>>
>>>> On my opinion new president of the .cat foundation board has not such a
>>>> community oriented vision, so I'm no longer the .cat director. Not
>>>> too sure
>>>> then if new mgr and board will continue to build up on this legacy.
>>>>
>>>> rgds
>>>> jordi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Al 12/05/13 06:47, En/na Elver Loho ha escrit:
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Quick question: what role does your chapter play in the management of
>>>>> your country's specific top level domain?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering, because we occasionally have some disagreement with the
>>>>> .ee manager, but other than being able to talk to them, we have no
>>>>> say in
>>>>> things. Is this the case elsewhere as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Elver
>>>>> .ee chapter
>>>>>
>>>>> elver.loho at gmail.com
>>>>> +372 5661 6933
>>>>> skype: elver.loho
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
>>>>> subscribed
>>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet
>>>>> Society
>>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>