of the Governmental Advisory Committee
(14 July 2000)
of the Governmental Advisory Committee
14 July 2000
FRIDAY, 14 JULY 2000 - The Governmental
Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers held its sixth meeting yesterday and today in Yokohama.
The attending Committee members, representing 31 national governments,
distinct economies as recognised in international fora, and multinational
governmental and treaty organisations, reflecting representation
from all of ICANNs geographic regions, issued the following
The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
has had fruitful discussions around substantive issues relating
to the usage of the Internet across the worldwide community,
ICANN activities, and the administration of the country code
top level domains:
A. With regard to ICANNs
funding and budget:
The governments, public authorities and
organisations that comprise the GAC support ICANN; it is recognised
that ensuring that ICANN has a sufficient level of funding is
a crucial component of enabling it to complete the tasks for
which it was created. Accordingly, it is important that ICANN
receive a level of funding which will allow it to fulfil its
responsibilities, including consensus development and ensuring
the reliable technical operation of the domain name system.
It is noted that through its document "Principles
for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level
Domains" (the GAC Principles), the GAC has indicated its
view that ccTLD administrators should contribute towards the
funding of ICANN in accordance with an equitable scale, based
on ICANNs total funding requirements (including reserves),
developed by ICANN on the basis of consensus.
With regard to the contribution for the
past fiscal year, the view of the GAC is that ccTLDs should pay
the prescribed contribution contained in ICANNs 1999-2000
Recognising that situations may differ
among various ccTLDs, the GAC encourages ccTLDs to explore means
appropriate to their particular circumstances to ensure payment
of their contribution to ICANN within a reasonable time frame.
With respect to the future allocation of
ICANNs cost recovery obligations, the GAC recommends that
ICANN develop and broadly communicate procedures to ensure that
consensus exists with respect to funding allocations. Those procedures
should spell out the obligation of all parties to participate
in opportunities such as notice and comment periods designed
to determine whether or not consensus is present.
As decisions within ICANN are based on
consensus, the GAC encourages ICANNs Task Force on Funding,
the ccTLD community and others to continue their efforts to achieve
consensus on the determination of:
1. the future appropriate share of ICANNs
budget contributed to by all relevant participants; and
2. the appropriate criteria and mechanism
for calculating the amount of each ccTLDs annual contribution
to the funding of ICANN.
The GAC encourages ICANN to present the
results of this work in time for its next round of meetings in
B. With regard to the
addition of new top level domains (TLDs):
That this is a very important area and
the GAC wishes to consider it further.
C. With regard to the
delegation and administration of country code top level domains
The GAC has had constructive discussions
with the ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO. It is noted that there
are many areas of common ground between the GAC and the ccTLD
Constituency, however there are also a number of areas where
further discussion should be undertaken.
The GAC reconfirmed its support for the
GAC Document "Principles for the Delegation and Administration
of Country Code Top Level Domains". The GAC noted in particular
that while governments and public authorities need not be involved
in day to day decision making, they exercise ultimate public
policy authority, representing the interests of the people for
which the ccTLD has been delegated.
In order to minimise prejudice (potential
or otherwise) ICANN should not enter into any contractual arrangements
with ccTLD administrators of ccTLDs for which redelegation requests
The GAC invites ICANN, as a first step,
to write to the relevant governments and public authorities to
ascertain their views concerning the current delegation for the
ccTLDs that correspond to their jurisdictions.
The GAC advises ICANN not to enter into
contracts with any ccTLD registries until they have received
the relevant communication, as referred to above, from the relevant
government or public authority.
Thereafter, the GAC encourages that any
future contracts between ICANN and ccTLD administrators should
reflect the administrators commitment to be bound by the
GAC Principles (as they are implemented by the relevant government
or public authority) and minimize the liability of ICANN for
implementing a redelegation according to these principles.
With reference to the draft ccTLD Manager
/ ICANN Status Quo Agreement, the GAC:
- notes that unfortunately, given the short
time period for comments in preparation for Yokohama, the GAC
has not had sufficient time to consider and comment on this matter;
- notes that this is a discussion document
from the ICANN staff and that ICANN will not act on this before
full consultation; and
- considers that the issues in this document
need thorough discussion to take full account of the view of
governments and public authorities and they will be examined
by the GAC for consistency with the GAC Principles document,
and notably the communication-based regime proposed by the GAC
D. With regard to the
definition of ICANNs Geographic Regions:
ICANN should make reference to existing
international norms for regional distribution of countries.
The GAC thanks the Japanese government,
the Yokohama Host Committee, the Japan Network Information Centre
(JPNIC) and the sponsors for hosting its meeting.
The next face-to-face meeting of the GAC
will be held in November 2000 in Marina Del Rey to coincide with
ICANNs next round of meetings.
Comments concerning the layout, construction and
functionality of this site
should be sent to email@example.com.
Page Updated 08-October-2000
(c) 2000 The Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
All rights reserved.