Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN and ccTLD registries

[Stefano Trumpy <Stefano.Trumpy@iat.cnr.it>]

>Jefsey,
>
>I suppose Alf Hansen (NORID, CENTR) or Stefano Trumpy (IT-NIC,
>CENTR) could give us more in-depth information on the CENTR
>position. If you are interested in ICANN's position towards
>the ccTLD registries, you can find a draft status quo agreement
>that was prepared by ICANN staff for the Yokohama meeting at
>http://www.icann.org/yokohama/draft-cctld-status-quo-agreement-05jul00.htm
>
>About authority: One of CENTR's points is that no authority is
>conceded to ICANN by any CENTR member *on the management of any
>ccTLD*. In the ICANN draft, ICANN (re)affirms the "delegation
>of the responsibility for management and operation" of the ccTLD.
>
>It's not that the CENTR ccTLDs want to boycott ICANN in general;
>it seems to me that they don't want to create a precedent by
>accepting the invoice without contract. And there are a number
>of issues to be resolved (ccTLD re-delegation and government
>involvement, terms of service etc.). I also heard that some
>people from ccTLDs are unhappy with the way DNSO is working and
>the role of the ccTLDs there, but maybe it's better to ask people
>from ccTLDs themselves.
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander

Let me give here some simplified background on ICANN funding;

	- ICANN budget (about 4.5 million $) is covered 90% by the 
registries (exactly 45% by NSI, 10% by the registrars of gTLDs and 
35% by the ccTLDs), and 10% by the IP numbers organizations, 
following the indications of an ad hoc WG on funding;

	- NSI and the registrars have a formal contract in place with 
ICANN and the share to be paid has been computed on the basis of 1/3 
of $ per registred name for NSI (situation of 31st December 1999);

	- a similar model was not agreed with the ccTLDs because of 
lack of consensus on the funding model and the difficulty to 
establish contracts with some 240 ccTLDs; added to that there has 
been the necessity (supported by the Governmental Advisory Committee 
- GAC) of establishing the legitimacy of the current registries (in 
other words, the relation of the registries, which are running a 
public service for the community, with their local governments);

	- ICANN in the last May issued invoices to the ccTLD 
managers, based on the same model as the NSI invoice (1/3 of $ per 
egistred name);

	- CENTR and a relevant group of the ccTLD constituency 
complained for the lack of a contractual relation for services with 
ICANN and indicated, as a solution for the year budget (1 July 99 - 
30 June 00), that each registry make a donation to ICANN based on 
self selected bandwiths which reasonnably migth reach the 1.5 million 
expected by ICANN from the ccTLDs; for the recently initiated budget 
years, it is of the utmost urgency to agree on a funding model and to 
establish a contractual relation between ccTLDs and ICANN; the status 
quo agreement presented in Yokohama was a last minute attempt of 
ICANN staff to propose that contractual agreement; negotiations are 
taking place to reach a definite agreement before next meeting of 
ICANN which will take place in November, in Marina del Rey, 
California;

	- for wath concerns the past budget, It is likely that the 
planned amount will not be reached; for wath concerns Europe, the 
European Union, the GAC representatives and the ccTLD managers are 
interacting in order to reach a fair share of the global sum expected 
by ICANN from the ccTLDs.

I tried to simplify as much as possible the very intriguing 
situation, having participated in CENTR as representative of ".it" 
(actually I am a member of the coordination committee of ".it" 
registry in charge of the international relations and I am advisor of 
the Italian GAC representative).
The obstacles that render this situation slow are connected to the 
difficulty of reaching an agreement on the relations between the 
registries and their government and with ICANN; I am confident that 
an agreement will be found in the next months. My presonal position 
is that the intervention of the governments should be as ligth as 
possible and that they should enter in the play only in those cases 
where the Local Internet Community is not satisfied with the 
management of the registry and the governments, as an important part 
of the LIC, could play a role in a redelegation process.
I am readu to enter into more details if someone requests.

Stefano Trumpy

>_______________________________________________________
>  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
>
>--
>
> > Alexander,
> > tour response to Vittorio is very interesting. You seem to be
> > well aware of the ccTLD situation: could you tell us what the
> > ICANN wants to bill the ccTLD for.  This description would
> > probably help everyone in better understanding how the
> > ICANN sees itself.
> >
> > I am quite interested by the point made by the CENTR (the
> > european ccTLD at large) that the ccTLD have not delegated
> > yet any authority to the ICANN. This seems to be a key issue.
> >
> > If you consider the DNS: the "autority" is with the fellow user.
> > a-root, ccTLD, ISP, etc.. are just telling which nameserver has
> > autority. IMHO (cf. Jon Postel's RFC) the ICANN *service* is to
> > manage the public TLD set. Why virtual authority would not
> > show the lead to real authority? I wander.
> > Jefsey

****************************************************************************
  Stefano Trumpy
  Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
  Istituto per le Applicazioni Telematiche (IAT)
  Via V.Alfieri, 1
  56010 Ghezzano (Pisa) Italy

phone: +39 050 3152 112 (or 634)  mobile: +39 335 373423 fax: +39 050 3152113
e-mail: Stefano.Trumpy@iat.cnr.it          http://www.iat.cnr.it
****************************************************************************