Formalising the relationships with the New Zealand Government
At the August 2006 Council meeting, it was agreed that NZOC would outline their proposed approach for formalising the relationship with the New Zealand Government (NZG) to the next Council meeting for approval. (This report includes Draft Terms of Reference)
There are two parts to this paper. The first sets out reasons for and against formalising the relationship with the NZG, with the second part outlining how this might be approached should the project proceed.
Council is asked to discuss the information provided in Part A and make a final, binding decision as to whether InternetNZ agrees to commit to a formal agreement (of any particular form) with the NZG. If Council does not agree on that aspect, the second part of the paper does not need to be discussed.
Part A – Advantages and Disadvantages of formalising the relationship with the NZG
InternetNZ has managed the .nz domain name space since 1996 under a delegation that was originally derived from Jon Postel (who at that time had sole responsibility for the administration of the IANA – Internet Assigned Numbers Authority). ICANN now manages the ‘IANA functions’ under a contract with the US Department of Commerce.
Currently, the NZG ‘recognises’ the role played by InternetNZ, but there are no agreements or ‘communications’ of any kind in place between the NZG and InternetNZ. NZG officials in a private capacity have participated in the development of policies and procedures under which .nz operates but there is no formal relationship. As previously put before Council, it is NZOC’s opinion that the time has come to change this situation and to get formal recognition by the NZG of the role InternetNZ has in .nz by entering into some form of agreement with them.
Reasons for formalising the relationship with the NZG include:
It is in the interest of the security and stability of the New Zealand Internet
People currently in key positions and the good relationships with those individuals
Though there are no real negatives about InternetNZ and .nz, there have recently been some comments made in different areas of government regarding the operation of the .nz domain name space.
With no agreement in place there is speculation about how .nz operates creating, possibly, ill-informed comment. With an appropriate agreement, there would be more visibility of aspects of the .nz operation and performance standards established.
Appropriate government departments are engaged in policy consultations and key developments now so that wouldn’t change.
InternetNZ is also looking at formalising their relationship with ICANN – there are benefits in working on both in parallel processes
The current GAC guidelines include the statement “Ultimate public policy authority over the relevant ccTLD rests with the relevant government or public authority; how this authority is exercised is determined by applicable law.” This view is likely shared by the NZG also. Formalising the relationship regarding .nz would be consistent with this.
Government ‘acknowledge’ that .nz generally run appropriately and according to RFCs
Acknowledgement from NZG would allow InternetNZ certainty and is in the interests of InternetNZ’s members and long term strategy
NZOC acknowledge that their views about formalising the relationship with the NZG might not be shared by all members of InternetNZ. Some of the reasons for people holding this view might include:
NZG is not involved in the operation of .nz and never has been.
InternetNZ is operating the ccTLD in line with RFCs which meets our obligations. We don’t need government approval
Start of the ‘slippery slope’ if InternetNZ gives NZG even a slight encouragement to “get involved”.
NZG would probably require approval (possible ministerial) to enter into negotiations. What would it indicate if that approval was declined? Where would that leave InternetNZ?
It could allow the NZG an undue influence on .nz policy and how the ccTLD should operate.
Views held previously by various members and executives of InternetNZ have generally been not to enter into any sort of agreement with NZG. Some people have felt this since InternetNZ obtained the delegation and one of their concerns is that formalising the relationship with the NZG could compromise InternetNZ’s delegation.
As the importance of the Internet in New Zealand increases, the operation of the .nz domain name space is coming under increasing scrutiny. In the absence of any documented standards or requirements, there is a void of detail in the .nz operation that is allowing speculation as to responsibilities and processes to take place. This is being seen with increasing frequency by a number of different areas of government, none of which have a real appreciation of how the .nz space is managed and operated.
Concerns about a formal agreement with the NZG are legitimately held and have basis. On balance however, NZOC consider that the advantages of formalising the relationship with the NZG outweigh the reasons for maintaining the status quo. The reasons for proceeding with this project are such that NZOC are confident that any agreement can only assist in the long term certainty of the .nz delegation for InternetNZ, whilst at the same time also helping to ensure the security and stability of the Internet in New Zealand.
Part B – Proposed process
Assuming it is agreed that the relationship with the NZG should be formalised, NZOC recommends the following general process to Council:
A Working Group (WG) is established to undertake the project. The members of this WG will be decided by Council following a recommendation by NZOC (made to the December 2006 meeting of Council). An appropriate Chair will also be recommended.
A draft Terms of Reference (TOR) is enclosed in Appendix 1. Please note that these draft TOR assume that the WG is established to conduct the process and that NZOC acts as a Steering Group. These are decisions for Council (see other bullet points) but the draft TOR sets out the aim and nature of the WG.
There are a few options for where the WG reports to – either direct to Council, to the Internet Governance Tiger Team or through to NZOC. NZOC would recommend that the WG report through to them so that they can ensure any information or needs that the WG requires to proceed can be provided in a timely manner through the support of the DNC Office.
All decisions will be made by Council following recommendations from the WG. These will include the format of any agreement as well as the detailed content.
A more detailed plan will be developed once the general process is agreed. This will be finalised once the WG is in place and their TOR have been finalised.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the InternetNZ Council:
Agree to formalise the relationship with the New Zealand Government
Approve the approach to formalising the relationship with the New Zealand Government either:
As proposed
As per agreed changes
Chair, NZOC
Appendix 1
DRAFT
Terms of Reference – Working Group
Background
InternetNZ has managed the .nz domain name space since 1996 under a delegation that was originally derived from Jon Postel (who at that time had sole responsibility for the administration of the IANA – Internet Assigned Numbers Authority). ICANN now manages the ‘IANA functions’ under a contract with the US Department of Commerce.
Currently, the NZG ‘recognises’ the role played by InternetNZ, but there are no agreements or ‘communications’ of any kind in place between the New Zealand Government and InternetNZ. NZG officials in a private capacity have participated in the development of policies and procedures under which .nz operates but there is no formal relationship.
Council has agreed that the time has come to change this situation and to get formal recognition by the New Zealand Government of the role InternetNZ has in .nz by entering into some form of agreement with them.
Scope
The Working Group will consider matters relating to formalising the relationship between the New Zealand Government and InternetNZ. Reporting through to the NZOC, they will seek to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. The Working Group has no mandate to commit InternetNZ without specific Council approval.
Key roles and responsibilities
Commission a study of other jurisdictional arrangements to determine if there is a ‘best practice’ model;
Identify a suitable agency with the New Zealand Government to discuss formalising a relationship with (Note: it is likely that this will be the State Services Commission);
Initiate discussion with the identified agency over the forma and content of a possible Memorandum of Understanding;
Report on a regular basis to NZOC on all substantive discussions (NZOC will act as a Steering Group for the process);
Seek approval from NZOC before entering into detailed negotiations over text;
Report to Council through NZOC as required;
No agreement to be entered into without Council approval.
The process of the discussion will need to be agreed with the lead Government agency but could be something like:
Agree in principle that an agreement is desirable;
Agree on the form/nature of the instrument and process for developing it;
Negotiate the instrument;
Report seeking approval.
