The ccNSO Council has resolved that a ccNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) be initiated to consider changes to:
ICANN Bylaws Article IX (Country-Code Names Supporting Organization) (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IX);
Annex B (ccNSO Policy-Development Process) (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexB); and
Annex C (the Scope of the ccNSO) (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexC)
to address the matters outlined in paragraphs A to M of Section 3.2 of the Issues Report prepared by Issue Manager.
These matters are:
Article IX:
A -- No binding policy for non-members of the ccNSO.
Under the conditions enumerated in Article IX section 4.10 a ccNSO policies shall apply to members of the ccNSO by virtue of their membership. Is this language sufficiently clear.
B -- IANA Services
At article IX section 4.3 it is stated that ccTLD’s mangers receipt of IANA services is independent of membership of that ccTLD manager in the ccNSO.
Is this language sufficiently clear?
C -- Amendment of the by-law.
Under the current bylaws there is a provision (Article IX section 6) that deals with changes to Annex B and Annex C of the bylaws.
Should the ICANN Board only be able to change or amend Article IX, Annex B and Annex C after consultation and the consent of the members of the ccNSO?
D -- Setting binding policies
Under the current bylaws (Article IX section 4,10) a member of the ccNSO shall be bound by an ICANN policy if, and to only to the extent that this policy (a) has been developed through the ccPDP and b) has been recommended as such by the ccNSO to the Board, and (c) is adopted by the Board as a policy.
Should a policy only be binding on members if and only to the extent the policy is on an issue that is within Scope and has been developed through the ccPDP and is adopted by the Board?
E -- Can the ccNSO potentially set binding policies on its members on activities not defined in Article IX section 1 but authorised by its members? If so, is this an issue? If not, should the ccNSO be able to do so?
F -- Changes to ccPDP and Scope
The use of the word “initially” in Article IX section 6 implies the scope for setting binding policies (and the ccPDP) will change over time. Should the ccNSO be able to change the Scope and the ccPDP over time? Should the ccNSO be able to change Article IX over time?
G -- Applicable law exemption
Where a policy developed through a ccPDP conflicts with the law applicable to the ccTLD manager, the policy does not apply to the manager. The law applicable shall always remain paramount.
Should a process be inserted into Article IX section 4.10 that sets out how a decision should be made as to whether a ccNSO policy does conflict with the national law of a ccNSO member?
ccPDP (Annex B)
H -- Initiating a ccPDP
Under the current bylaws the ccNSO Council can initiate a ccPDP on matters which are within Scope and outside of Scope (Annex B section 2.b) Should it only be possible for the Council to initiate a ccPDP on matters that are within the Scope of the ccNSO?
I -- Membership quorum voting on PDP recommendations
According to the current bylaws (Annex B section 13) a vote of the members is valid without a quorum. Should a vote of ccNSO members only be valid if at least 50% of the members have lodged a vote irrespective of the round of voting?
J -- Rejection of PDP recommendations by the ICANN Board
Under the current bylaws the Board can reject a recommendation of the ccNSO in case the Board determines by a vote of more than 66% of the Board that such policy is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or of ICANN (Annex B section 15). Should the ICANN Board only be able to reject a Recommendation or Supplemental Recommendation as the case may be in exceptional circumstances?
K -- Ability of Board to set binding policies on issues not within scope.
Under the current bylaws an issue outside of scope can be considered in a PDP. In case the final recommendation to resolve the issue is a Supplemental Recommendation (Annex B section 15) and the issue is within scope according to General Counsel pursuant to Annex B section 2, the Board may not set a policy and the status quo remains.
If the Council will remain able to initiate a ccPDP outside of Scope, is the ICANN Board able to set its own policy, if the issue is not within scope pursuant to the opinion of the General Counsel and in case the Supplemental Recommendation is rejected by the Board? If so, should this remain the case? If not, should this be introduced?
Scope of the ccNSO (Annex C)
L -- Should the Scope of the ccNSO be redefined?
Comment and input is sought from the relevant constituencies on:
- Whether the matters raised are of concern to ccNSO members, and the ccTLD community and its stakeholders generally;
- If so, methods of resolving the issue(s);
- Support for the alternative solutions throughout the relevant constituencies; and
- The feasibility, effectiveness and proportionality of the solutions proposed.
Pursuant to the time line contained in the Issue Report this is the first comment period of the PDP. This comment period is open until 5pm UTC on 16 July 2005.
When submitting comments please use the relevant headings A-M as above.
Comments can be submitted via email and will be archived.