GTLD-MOU POLICY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
NOTICE-97-01
ACTION: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
ANNOUNCEMENT DATE: September 13, 1997
CLOSING DATE: October 13, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of Representation of Constituencies in the gTLD-MoU
Policy
Oversight Committee
ADDRESSES: Electronic comments should be sent to
notice-97-01@gtld-mou.org.
Comments submitted can be in ASCII, Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or HTML.
Comments related to this request for comments can be found at
http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-01/. Written comments or comments
submitted
on diskette can be sent to:
gTLD-MoU/Notice-97-01
ITU
Place des Nations
1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
If further information is required on this notice, please contact
poc-submit@gtld-mou.org.
A. BACKGROUND
The current gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee (POC) consists of
appointments
from the:
* Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
* Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
* Internet Society (ISOC)
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
* World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
* International Trademark Association (INTA)
In addition, there are planned appointments from the:
* gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body (elected from signatories to the
gTLD-MoU - see http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/signat.htm)
* Council of Registrars (CORE) (elected by the Council of Registrars)
The gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee believes that all gTLDs should
be
administered by a genuinely international body with representatives of
all
the significant stakeholder interests in the Internet Domain Name System
(DNS).
In addition, there are the following considerations
* POC is only involved in DNS oversight matters, not Internet
governance
at large
* POC needs to be representative and legitimate, thus with diversified
composition
* No single interest class nor entity should control POC
* Terms of appointments shouldn't be so short as to undermine POC's
stability
* POC membership can require an extensive commitment in time and
resources
* As currently structured, POC membership is 14 people
In order to accomplish better representation of other significant
stakeholder
interests in the Internet Domain Name System, the gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight
Committee (POC) proposes that the POC be expanded by adding
representatives
from interest classes that are clear stakeholders in the Internet DNS
and
currently under-represented.
We solicit suggestions from the public regarding:
* Internet DNS stakeholder interests that are under-represented in the
gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee
* an appropriate procedure for nominating representatives;
* an appropriate procedure for selecting the representative from each
class;
* the length of term each representative should serve;
* mandatory term limits, if any;
* whether representatives should be selected from groups within a class
(e.g.
trade associations) or directly from the members of that class;
* other considerations.
B. QUESTIONS:
1. How many people do you think can constitute a functioning Policy
Oversight
Committee?
**15-20 for an executive committee. However, in the area of DNS
administration and internet governance in general, this is far too small
a body to have ultimate decision making control. In our view the
current and - more importantly - future stakeholders in the internet
need more extensive representation in a more widely constituted and
larger body, say an "Internet Congress", which would delegate planning
on specific issues (eg DNS administration) to a sub-committee (or
"Cabinet"), which would be responsible for making proposals. The
proposals would then require endorsement and validation by the Internet
Congress as a whole, before implementation. We envisage the "Internet
Congress" would be a much larger body drawing representation from all
interest groups. This should be a private sector initiative in which
mainstream business and consumer interests should take the lead. (The
PAB, as a self-selecting group only of those who have endorsed the
gTLD-MoU, could not be considered representative of wider interests in
the manner anticipated for an "Internet Congress".)
2. Which interest classes require representation in the gTLD-MoU Policy
Oversight
Committee?
End-Users YES (REAL-WORLD consumers, not just net-aware ISOC members)
Internet Service Providers YES
Telecommunications Companies YES
Public Interest Groups YES
Business and Advertising Interests YES (All MAINSTREAM businesses,
not just IT enterprises)
Content Providers YES
Internet Technical Infrastructure Interests YES
Software Suppliers YES
Trademark Community/Law YES
Intergovernmental Interests YES
Domain Name Registrars YES
**It is essential to recognise that the internet will affect everyone,
and therefore, everyone should be represented. This is not to say that
all the groups listed above should necessarily have separate
representation - that ought to be a matter for further consideration.
Generally, however, references to the "internet community" really only
include those who are presently "internet aware". Thus the overwhelming
majority of those who stand to be profoundly affected have no clear
representation. Our concern here is that present proposals to add
further "undifferentiated" gTLDs (ie not subject to specific entry
criteria) clearly will not be scalable to meet longer term needs of
those yet to come in any logical fashion and this could adversely impact
on the development of electronic commerce, by creating problems and
confusion for businesses and consumers wishing to use the internet.
>From a business viewpoint, there are two criteria to be looked for from
domain name administration:
1) a logical structure to the system to reduce the potential for
conflict, such that in general those with rights to use a name in the
real world without conflict can also use the same name on the internet
without conflict; and
2) an equitable dispute resolution process to resolve any conflicts
which do still arise.
To meet these would seem to require more sophisticated and radical
changes than those presently being proposed.
3. Which of the listed interest classes above do you think are
under-represented
in the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee?
End-Users
Public Interest Groups
Business and Advertising Interests
Content Providers
See comments above. Mainstream business interests, in particular,
should have much greater consideration and involvement.
4. For each of the interests classes you have indicated as
under-represented in
the gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee:
Should each representative be selected from groups within a class
(e.g., trade
or other associations) or directly from members of that class?
As a practical matter, selection from groups within a class is probably
the most realistic option.
Thus, for businesses, one can envisage the International Chamber of
Commerce, for example, co-ordinating the selection process from its
membership. Alternatively, one might look to regional bodies, giving
so many seats to business groups from each geographical region according
to some appropriate criteria (eg trade volume).
Consumer groups might be more difficult, but again it should be possible
to have national consumer groups select a regional representative etc.
What is the appropriate procedure for nominating representatives for
each of
the classes that you have indicated are under-represented?
If selection is to be from groups, then this should logically be a
matter for the groups to determine.
What is the appropriate procedure for selecting representative for
each of the
classes that you have indicated are under-represented?
Again, this would seem to be a matter for decision within the respective
groups.
What is the length of term each representative should serve for each
of the
classes that you have indicated are under-represented? If desired,
please
include suggested mandatory term limits.
Not more than two years, not less than one year, for all classes,
whether presently under-represented or not. As is often observed,
internet years are shorter than real years!
5. Please discuss below any other considerations vis-a-vis the structure
of the gTLD-
MoU Policy Oversight Committee not covered in this questionnaire.
[END]