Domain Name Handbook

Contents | Special Features | News | Order | Glossary | Opinions | Acknowledgments | Contacts


NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
Notes by Ellen Rony, who is not responsible for misspelled words and names or other inaccuracies.


[These notes do not include the first 45 minutes of the ad hoc membership meeting.]
Q - Robert Connelly - Challenge GAC to rethink the citizenship reqirement. It is xenophobic to assume an individual who represents a company is a citizen of that company. Please gtive us a rationale.
Toomey: More certainty around citizenship than around residency. Will take it back to the GAC. In a modern residence reqirement, people could claim residency in three countries because they do business in all three.
Q - Which countries were represented at today's GAC meeting?

Toomey: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Denmark, EU, France, Gambia, Germany, Hong Kong China, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealane, Nieu, Norway, Russian Federation, ,Singapore, Seden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, US, WIPO

Q - Kenneth Cukier - Did you discuss the possibiility of data escrow in ccTLD space. Did issue of privacy come ujp and what were some conclusions?
Toomey: Today, we talk very generally around issues but we do not have final document. Doesn't represent anything but an initial discussion. Talking through a lot of issues.
Q - About escrowing data again.
Toomey: GAC has no authority to demand anything of anybody. There has to be authority given to the sovereign authority as relates to the rights of their own ccTLDs.
Q - Do nations have authority over their ccTLDs?
Toomey: Berlin statement said they do. What we are really concerned is talking through issues of praciticality. How can we engage in thinking this through and making this process happen smoothly.
Q. Michael Schneider: Regarding the tripartite agreement {DOC/NSI/ICANN], the fact that GAC is taking note of the agreement is very enlightening. Will GAC follow up on that?
Toomey: Many of our members who are participating are new to the issues so we are not in the position to say we have a common view. GAC cannot intervene. We are just a group of governments to reflect implications of natinal laws and treaties. Some members of the GAC have made representations on the agreements. The dialogue is continuing.
Q - Dana Gallup: Would GAC consider some means by which you can open up the process to more participating goverments. Participation by 31 entitites when there are more than 200 governmental bodies is not truly representative of those bodies. Consider participation by means of telephone or video conferencing making the process more inclusive. e.g. Moldova cannot attend because of financial burden.
Toomey: Good point. Praciticalities of teleconferencing are difficult. We are certainly using online communications. If there are people in government you think need to get involved, please let me know. At some practical level regarding face-to-face, money is in some sense commitment.
Q - Antony Van Coovering - Wanted to talk in Berlin about best practices, ccTLDs but at the time you felt tht wasn't a good idea. What has changed?
Toomey: One of the things that has taken place is that supporting organizations has solidified. There is more general consensus and we have more dialogue. timingwise, it was a aprogression to get there.
Q - Antony Van Coovering : Handed a GAC Statement of Principles
Toomey: Won't answer any questions on that. It doesn't represent any sense of our discussions to date. It was a haflway piece of work presented by a few people. Answering questions based on that document would be inappropriate.
Q - Antony Van Coovering : Redelegation has been the purview of IANA, what do you see is the continuing role of IANA
Toomey: I can't give you an answer because we don't have one. There is a role for three parties, ICANN, delegee and the national government or public authority. What those roles are is unclear.
Q - Antony Van Coovering: To what extent do you see the good performance of a ccTLD manager to be a good representation for determining redelegation?
Toomey: Let me exaggerate and simplify in the inverse to make a point. If a ccTLD is not operating for reasons that the delegee is not performing, and the rights of the citizens in that country are being infringed because they cannot access it. If it is not broke, don't fix it. If that is performance, then clearly it is an issue.
Q - Antony Van Coovering Is it important to hold governments to some standard of performance as well as delegees?
Toomey: Dscussion led to comment that there are responsibilities on governments. There are some distinguishments from delegee and the administration of marketing. They can be done by different people and different parties in different locales. Important to make those distinctions.
Q - Craig Simon - There will be a meeting of WGC at 8 a.m. Solicit comments sfrom the online community about this issue. Please comment on what you have seen regarding learning curve of GAC and different levels of seniority when folks go back to their countries and make recommendations?
Toomey: Some senior, some are not. Often reflects where various administrations are in relation to the Internet. We have a variety. What matters are people who think that this should be in their community, in their governments. Getting more and more members and new people coming who think this is something valuable to do. I am hesitant to turn this into educations for governments?
Q - Ralph Nader proposed that ICANN should be backed to an intergovernmental charter?
Toomey: As Australian government position, we prefer to see level of coordination around technical issues by community closest to them as possible. Intergovernmental issue is remote from issues. Assuming that participation of so many governments in GAC represents a similar analysis. GAC wording from last meeting keeps reinforcing role of ICANN. Model that Nader has indicated is the potential alternative model if this one doesn't work. We don't think that model will work, so we are working hard for this one.
Q: Werner Staub: The US DOC has quite extensive dormant powers that could be exercised in case of necessity, including withdrawing recognition of ICANN and agreements that GAC takes note of . How do governments feel about this? Basically, one government holds the key to the entire thing, and there is no limitations on this power.
Toomey: I think there is open discussion and recognition that in the White Paper process, the US government recognized an increasing role for the participation in the administration of the DNS. I think some government authorities still remain in discusisn around that principle. The second issue is that we would be very careful in our analysis. In some respects you have to rely on state institutions to enforce model. A personal observation: those agreements reflect the enforcement power of a state as a fallback power. That is one of the value added parts of the GAC. That eventual fallback power on the sovereign to enforce is, I think, a postive thing.
Q - Werner Staub: Appreciate a need to have a safety valve in the system, but it shouldn't be the cause of an explosion.; The unlimited power in the hands of any party is not safe. Concerned that US could openly exercise this power in its own national interest.
Toomey: Cannot respond to that question as chair because different governments have different reactions.

The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace
Copyright© 1999 Ellen Rony and Peter Rony
Website created and maintained by Ellen Rony - Alexander Works, Tiburon, CA