Subject: [centr-ga] Summary ccNSO Bylaws debate
Dear all,
This is a brief summary on the intense ccNSO Bylaws debate during the wwTLD meeting.
It will hopefully facilitate CENTR members to understand the most important paragraphs and changes made by the wwTLD group.
- The main critics to the originally proposed ccNSO bylaws concentrated around three points:
- No clearly defined scope for the ccNSO
- The decisions made by the ccNSO shall be "binding" to the members
- There is no quorum for ccNSO members for voting on recommendations
- Having attended the joint GAC - ERC meeting, it became clear that the GAC shares these main concerns with the ccTLDs.
- Members of the ERC group (Alejandro Pisanty and Hans Kraajenbrink) attended the ccTLD meeting (Monday, 23 June ) and after a heated debate they agreed on making substantial changes to the Bylaws. A group of ccTLD representatives agreed on helping with the redrafting.
- The new draft was presented on the following day (Tuesday, 24 June), but as the ccTLD group still had many objections, two groups were created to look at the Bylaws again.
A whole afternoon session was then devoted to merge these changes into the Bylaws. At the end of the session a straw poll was taken, which showed that a vast majority of all members would consider to join a ccNSO if these Bylaws were implemented.
Volunteers then met with Louis Touton, Hans Kraajienbrink, Alejandro Pisanty and Theresa Swinehart to negotiate those changes.
- In a special session on Wednesday morning (25 June), the ccTLD group reconvened and were presented to the revised proposed Bylaws amendments.
The new proposal now makes clear that:
- The scope is defined in the Bylaws Annex C (it explicitly delineates the ccTLDs to the Data entry function and to the Name server function)
- The decisions made by the ccNSO apply "by virtue of their membership" - i.e. it is not binding.
If a ccTLD is not prepared to follow a policy it has to name the reasons (e.g. breach of local laws, religious reasons etc.) to the ccNSO Council, which is entitled to respond to this. If the Council consensus disagrees, a 6 month "cooling off"-period is foreseen. After this period, the Council may make a new finding, whether it believes the reasons to be appropriate, or not. No sanctions are foreseen, even if the board should make a negative finding.
- A compromise concerning the quorum regarding the Members Voting procedure was found: There will be no geographical regions, and a 50% quorum in the first round: If less than 50% of the votes will be cast, a second vote has to take place. The outcome of this vote will then be valid, even if the participation quote carries less than 50%.
A straw poll taken after the presentation of these amendments showed that the overwhelming majority of those ccTLDs present would be willing to give their board the recommendation to join the ccNSO under these conditions.
It was noted that these ccNSO Bylaws could not incorporate all concerns that had been addressed. However, the general opinion is that these Bylaws might be satisfactory to all boards.
It is now up to every single board to decide whether they agree to these Bylaws and if they would like to join the ccNSO.
- The ccNSO Bylaws will be put forward to the ICANN Board on Thursday (26 June) for approval.
A detailed report on the ccTLD and ICANN meeting will follow during the next days.
On behalf of all CENTR members, the CENTR secretariat would like to express their gratitude to the Assistance Group, which volunteered to guide the ccTLD community through this very long and complicated process.
Gabriella & Tim
