Paul, I need to comment on the following sentence that you added: "The ccTLD manager's receipt of IANA services is not in any way contingent upon membership in the ccNSO and a ccNSO member can resign at any time and cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO." I want to be careful about treading into ccTLD space because that is not my area of expertise but I have concerns about the last part of your sentence. I think I am fine with the first two parts but not with " cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO". Here are my concerns: 1. The ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs and my understanding is that their processes are open to all, not just members of the ccNSO, so whether a ccTLD is a member of the ccNSO or not, I think it is incumbent on them to participate in the policy development process; if they don't participate, then I don't think they have much ground for disagreeing with any policies that reach consensus level of support except in cases where their local laws might prevent them from doing so. 2. I believe there needs to be some ccTLD policy making body; until a better alternative is agreed to besides the ccNSO, it is what we have right now and as long as participation in the ccTLD PDP does not require ccNSO membership and non-member ccTLDs are welcome to participate, then that process should be used. 3. Security, stability and resiliency must be ensured for DNS names, otherwise all TLDs will be harmed. That means that policies must be established to make sure that happens. Giving any TLD (cc or g) the right to 'cease to abide by policies developed' by the applicable policy making body could in effect create security, stability or resiliency problems for everyone on the Internet. An example in point is the PDP that the ccNSO had for IDN ccTLDs. Do you think that ccTLDs should be able to refuse to abide by that policy? 4. I think it is important to recognize that the ccNSO is the policy making body for ccTLDs but they do not in fact establish policies, the ICANN Board does. (The same of course is true for gTLDs and the GNSO.) At a minimum, I think your suggested wording needs some qualifications added. But I will let all of you in the ccTLD world work this out. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:47 AM To: Lise Fuhr Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles For ccTLDs, stability and local policy development in accordance with national law is crucial. Diversity (within IETF standards) satisfies user needs. Post transition, nothing must be done by ICANN/IANA to destabilise the operation of legacy ccTLD Registry. ccTLDs need to have the ability to serve their respective communities. Have a good w/end all ..... See you in FRA Best Paul Lise Fuhr wrote:

Dear All,

Here is the revised draft of the Principles with all the comments we have received incorporated. You are welcome to send comments on the list. We will have the final reading at the meeting in Frankfurt.

Best regards,

Martin Boyle and Lise Fuhr

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Thanks Chuck, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Paul,

I need to comment on the following sentence that you added: "The ccTLD manager's receipt of IANA services is not in any way contingent upon membership in the ccNSO and a ccNSO member can resign at any time and cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO." I want to be careful about treading into ccTLD space because that is not my area of expertise but I have concerns about the last part of your sentence. I think I am fine with the first two parts but not with " cease to abide by policies developed by the ccNSO".

The above is COPIED from the ICANN Bylaws..... https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#IX (section 4 subsection 2) Note - the ccNSO fulfils a useful purpose for those that participate - just that is is not_the_ Policy development forum for ALL ccTLD Registries. We need to be careful to respect the diversity that exists amongst ccTLDs, almost all ccTLD have local Policy development processes that are approved by the Registry's Board of Directors and such good corporate governance practice must be respected. Rest assured that ccTLDs follow the Technical Standards that are published by the IETF to ensure global interability and Registration Policy for ccTLD is published by each ccTLD registry in accordance with their procedures.

Here are my concerns:

...... I think it is incumbent on them to participate in the policy development process; if they don't participate, then I don't think they have much ground for disagreeing with any policies that reach consensus level of support except in cases where their local laws might prevent them from doing so.

Just because an employee participates at a meeting (wherever that meeting is held) does not bind their employer / company as formally adopted business practice - unless the Board has explicitly agreed to it. Consequently, as a matter of good corporate governance, specific business practices can only be mandated by a Registry's Board of Directors by passing a resolution to adopt a specific set of rules that impact the operation of that company. Kind regards Paul