[Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC

[Martin Boyle]

[In case this is still an open issue!]

Like Milton I had missed the CWG reference to WSIS phase 1 (paragraph 83 on page 15 of the proposal).  It is actually included because of the reference from the 2005 GAC (which predated the rather more satisfactory wording in paragraph 63 of the Tunis Agenda).  I guess the inclusion was to make clear national interest and that ccTLDs were not the property, or under the jurisdiction, of the US, which was a major concern for many governments through the WSIS process.

Lynn's assessment in my mind is correct:  "The NTIA does not have authority over other [countries' ccTLDs] today and therefore nothing to "replace" per se."

Hope this helps

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 16 July 2015 04:01
To: Lynn St.Amour; Narelle Clark
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC

I was not on the call either. 
But having been involved in the CWG I am surprised to learn that it invokes the 2003 WSIS Plan of Action, as it is a declaration of an intergovernmental meeting at which civil society and business were often barred from participation in negotiations, would be cited as an authoritative source of policy. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:33 PM
> To: Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment - NC
> 
> Hi Narelle,
> 
> on the call today there was a brief discussion on the point you raise below.
> As you were not on the call, and we were missing most of the CC reps. 
> we said we would move the discussion to the mail list..
> 
> I stated (and I believe so did Joe, Jari and Manal) that I did not 
> believe there was an incompatibility between the Names proposal  
> Handling of ccTLDs and the NTIA criteria that it "will not accept a 
> proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".
> 
> The WSIS Plan of Action is very broad, and one of the overarching 
> principles (my words, not a formal or accepted description) is the 
> sovereignty of each country.  In addition to the reference you and the 
> CWG-Stewardship proposal quotes, there is also Paragraph 63 in the WSIS Tunis Agenda.
> "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another 
> country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate 
> interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, 
> regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, 
> upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms."
> 
> Further, many models are in place today to manage ccTLD's and many of 
> those models have roles for governments.  The NTIA does not have 
> authority over other ccTLD's today and therefore nothing to "replace" per se.
> 
> My .02, others should weigh in.
> 
> Narelle, let us know if this address your question.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:14 PM, Narelle Clark 
> <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of 
> > workability
> that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other 
> or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
> >
> > The Accountability mechanisms in the Names proposal are essentially
> undefined so therefore are untested.
> >
> >
> > NTIA Criteria Compliance
> > ===================
> > Handling of ccTLDs
> > It is arguable that there is an assertion of government control 
> > implicit in a
> specific section of the names proposal and in particular as it relates 
> to the
> ccTLDs: specifically via:
> > "1.7: It is recalled that the WSIS Plan of action of December 2003 
> > invites
> "Governments to manage or supervise, as appropriate, their respective 
> country code top-level domain name". Any such involvement should be 
> based on appropriate national laws and policies. It is recommended 
> that governments should work with their local internet community in 
> deciding on how to work with the ccTLD Registry."
> >
> > Considering both of these together, one is led to wonder about 
> > whether
> this is a potential incompatibility with the NTIA criteria that it 
> "will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a 
> government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution".
> >
> > The NTIA seems to be more in line with RFC 1591 which asserts that:
> > "The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each
> organized by an administrator for that country.  These administrators 
> may further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree.  
> These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the 
> Internet community."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Narelle Clark
> > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
> >
> > Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) Suite 4.02 
> > Level 4, 55 Mountain St, Ultimo NSW 2007 AUSTRALIA
> > M: 0412 297 043  |  P: 02 9288 4000  |  F: 02 9288 4019  |  TTY: 02
> > 9281 5322
> >
> > Join the discussion on Facebook, follow on Twitter or receive our 
> > weekly WebNews www.accan.org.au
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org