CENTR comment on DNSO process

[Fay Howard <fay@ripe.net>]

Dear DNSO participants,

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