Here is the transcript I made of the Monday morning (Nov. 1) session between
Josh Elliott of IANA and the ccTLD managers. Louis Touton, counsel for
ICANN, and Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN's staff person, also attended, and
indeed answered many of the questions.
In view of the fact that today the GAC communique, by omitting it entirely,
recommended the complete evisceration and disposal of IANA, and reduced
ICANN to a rubber stamp, the representations made on behalf of IANA and
ICANN are interesting reading indeed. (I don't know if the GAC release has
yet been made public, but it will soon be.)
The usual caveats pertain: I wrote down what I heard, I may have made
mistakes, etc. etc.
Antony

Transcript

Mike Roberts - Welcome. This is not the forum for business issues between
ccTLD managers and ICANN. IANA doesn't operate differently than it did
under Jon Postel. There will be adjustments, but staff is endeavoring to
continue along the same route as under Jon. ICANN hasn't made any policy or
procedural adjustments to IANA's way of operating.
Josh Elliott - Welcome. First meeting, therefore some shock about what this
might be. Agenda cut back because policy issues shouldn't be part of this
meeting, which should be informational. Josh, Joyce Reynolds who does
protocol and parameter stuff, Suzanne Wolf, who works with protocol and
technical. Andrew McLaughlin from ICANN, Antony Van Couvering as a
co-chair. IANA has not disappeared because of ICANN.
Andrew McLaughlin - Relationship between ICANN and IANA. I am the only
staff person at ICANN. First task at ICANN has been to try to rationalize
the relationship and the gTLDs. Recognize that doing the same for ccTLDs is
the next priority. AM, MR, and Louis Touton will talk to anyone about this.
ICANN hoping to establish a relationship of peers.
IANA is a function. Not an incorporated entity. Thought of as a group of
tasks, including administration of root zone, further range of functions as
well. ICANN's relationship to IANA is twofold: funding IANA, and IANA will
continue to do what it used to without interference from ICANN.
RFC 1591 and ICP1 - 1591 didn't fully reflect the current practices of IANA,
so ICP-1 is a restatement of 1591, taking account of the fact that things
have changed in the intervening five years. Policy changes need to come
from the ccTLD community.
JE - A lot of concern that ICP1 is not a restatement of RFC1591. What does
the community think about it, what are your concerns? Current practice is
that RFC 1591, which everyone has adopted, and ICP1, which no-one has
avowed. We are hoping to get to a point where RFC 1591 is obsoleted, would
like feedback.
Jim Higgins - IANA and ccTLDs have a different view of what 1591 is. You
see it as a reflection of current practice, we see it as a set of rules. So
one of the problems is that if IANA issues a new document, we have to then
inform our people of what new rules there are. So this should be a
co-operative venture to update it.
AM - 1591 still exists, and ICP-1 is an update. 1591 seen (quotes intro) to
be a basis for further discussion.
Willie Black - Concerned about 1591 with respect to agenda item number one.
Redelegations. Does IANA/ICANN have control of the database of who is the
manager of the ccTLDs. 1591 has a process for doing that. Does IANA/ICANN
have control of that? Or what role does DOC have? We need to sort that out
before going further.
AM - Not sure that he has a lot to say in response to that. Will paraphrase
1591,
WB - Who controls the database of top-level databases?
JE - Just posted yesterday the new IANA database of ccTLDs.
WB - But who controls that. If someone came along and said that .UK is a
bunch of wankers, and they had the support of everyone in the community,
would you change it.
Louis Touton - That database is held by the IANA which is a function of
ICANN, under contract to the USG.
JE - We make the decision.
JE - You send a request, we approve it, we send it to NSI, who checks with
DOC. The US DOC has not to date said that they would change any decision of
IANA.
Floor - What's in the contract.
Stephen Dooley - 1591 laid down procedures, now ICP1 has modifications and
refinements.
JE - We have not changed any policies.
SD - Will any changes to 1591 as it is set out now be subject to consent of
the Internet community?
LT - ICP1 represents the state of IANA policy when ICANN took over.
Incorporates RFC 1591 and other elements of current practice, including the
notes to the ccTLD community. Any changes in policy will be subject to the
regular procedures as set out in the ICANN bylaws.
SD - If there were a change, what would be followed.
LT - ICP1.
AM - If you find inconsistencies between 1591 and ICP1, let us know. Not
trying to throw new policies out without notice, comment, or participation
by the ccTLD community. 1591 still there, ICP1 is an informational document
which updates.
Dennis Jennings - Key question is the procedures for implementing changes,
and the authentication of such procedures. It would be very helpful to have
more information about this. This issue will be considered in considerable
detail, especially by CENTR at its Pisa meeting in December.
JE - IANA does not require DOC to make changes. NSI has asked DOC to do
that. We make the changes.
DJ - There are changes in routine information, which should be done on the
authority of the admin contact. Then there are some changes to the admin
which require a higher level authority. Finally, there is a change in
managers. I need to know exactly what the procedures are.
Patrick O'Brien - Recently Tuvalu has had their country code changed -
simple request from the existing manager sent to IANA, which changed it.
Same with .AQ. From what I can see IANA is correct, but I don't know what
would happen in the case of a challenge. [AVC note - I think he meant the
managers/admin contacts have changed; the two-letter codes have not
changed.]
Bill Semich - Willie Black asks, what happens if there is a challenge. I
recall that ICP1 that has performance related criteria. Does not provide
for redelegation just because someone asks for it.
JE - Andrew has pulled up ICP1, which we feel is still a restatement of
RFC1591. Nothing has changed there. Reading from ICP1. Talks about
exceptions where parties can't reach an agreement. Talks about .TM, which
has been in dispute for 1.5 years. That happened right after the
delegation, in the case of .UK it would be much harder.
Paul Kane - Referring to fact sheet presented on [xxx] site. "DOC has no
plans to give to any authority its authority to change the root." [Find
reference]
LT - First part of statement refers to operational control of the root -
which refers to the clerical task of making changes to the root. Has
entered into a research and development discussion with DOC, expects a
change within a few months, hesitant for security reasons to talk about the
exact timetable, but expects it to be completely transparent. Policy
control is contemplated by the White Paper to transfer the authority to
ICANN, but will be late in the transfer process.
PK - We already have in place procedures for dealing with transfer of
delegations. IANA's policy can have a stalemate, and certain domains can
remain dormant, in detriment to the community. We don't know who to talk.
LT - DOC has contracted with ICANN to perform this function, doesn't see DOC
talking directly to ccTLD managers
Eva Froehlich - Questions about the root servers, both the data in the root
and the redelegations of managers, are of crucial concerns to all TLDs.
There has been talk about contracts between ccTLDs and ??? - we don't know
who we are going to sign a contract with. Operationally, it seems to be
IANA and NSI, and that's fine from time to time. It seems that it is DOC,
and I'm not interested in signing a contract with the DOC, but rather with a
neutral third party. And we are not interested in dealing with US law, and
we need to know more. We are very disappointed to hear that you won't tell
us what's going on with the root servers.
AM - Clearly a lot of interest in the room on formalizing things were
handled informally. That was fine with Jon, a figure of great moral
authority. Root servers still done on an informal basis. We are on a
transition basis.
EF - Techies not running the Internet anymore, it's the business interests.
JE - We're here to keep the stability of the Internet, not to make changes
that will adversely affect the Internet. We understand that most ccTLDs are
business-driven entities. We're here for you.
Nigel Roberts - Disputes. .TM as an example. One question has to do with
starting a TLD. But for redelegation, the phrase in RFC 1591 refers to
"substantial misbehavior". Has that changed?
JE - There have been no changes.
Stephan Trumpy - In a transition phase, and we understand that. We
understand how it used to work, but maybe we don't understand where we are
heading. We learned that IANA is a function of ICANN, which operates under
a contract with the DOC. The rules of 1591, which worked quite smoothly.
In the case of Nigeria, it was unclear which was the relevant government
ministry. But now it's more complicated. There's ICANN, there's GAC. Now
we need more procedures. But we have also to be careful not to be too
formal. In my opinion, the direct relationship between govts and ICANN
should be kept to a minimum. But what needs to be clarified is the role of
ICANN, outside of the IANA function, with regard to these political matters.
This should be clarified. IANA must understand that the situation is
changing, because the governments want to become more involved.
JE - We have moved from Section 2 to Section 3 of the agenda. Note that
there is a new IANA database, which should have new and updated information
on each ccTLD.
Dennis Jennings - Wants to reiterate what Eva said, with regard to an
agreement between ccTLDs and whoever it is they will sign the agreement
with. Also concerned with funding. This is CENTR's concern.
Bill Manning - I question and am concerned about the creation of a new
document series. The Internet community uses the RFC series. I have worked
on the Internet for 15 - 20, and I've seen a lot of RFCs that state the
current state of affairs. I urge ICANN, once consensus has been reached,
that this go out as an RFC.
JE - RFCs have been architectural (mostly), not policy. That's why I
created the ICANN Policy documents.
AM - Don't see ICP1 as finalized, there to provoke discussion, and hopefully
will evolve into something more final. We are open-minded, and we want to
know what you think. We don't want to be a global body that tells ccTLDs
what to do. The message to take out of here is that we're not going to
start freelancing on this end.
Jim Higgins - What is "community" as defined by RFC 1591. That might differ
between ccTLDs. In "closed" TLD, it's the country's inhabitants, plus
domain holders. In "open" ccTLDs, holders outside the country must be
included.
JE - Can't define that accurately.
AM - All of the people you mentioned are interested parties, the questions
is who are the most important.
Jason Hendeles - What is the strategy that's going to be undertaken to
harmonize the ccTLDs' whois and zone information so that it might be
available from a single point.
JE - That's why we're here, to find what you want.
Eva F - What kind of services do I get for my money.
JE - We don't want to discuss contracts.
AM - Maybe appropriate to find out what kind of services you want. The
answer may be, not much.
Eva - I don't know what I want from IANA. I do want a contract with a
neutral third party. But what can you give me?
Peter de Blanc - Exchange between Bill Manning, Josh Elliott, Andrew
McLaughlin. Josh Elliott says that it's an ICP, not subject to review.
What is it.
AM - ICP1 is a restatement of 1591, starting point for discussion. In order
to publish an RFC, IETF review is necessary. So there's nothing to review.
IANA's policies are well articulated now, we need changes. There is no way
for the ccTLDs to talk to ICANN as one body. Outside of the DNSO, there
needs to be a peer relationship between ICANN and ccTLDs outside of the
DNSO. ICP1 is subject to revision through the ICANN policy. Any changes
to ICP1 must come through the ccTLD community. Changes will not be effected
without the participation of the ccTLD community.
Jason Hendeles - Wants ccTLDs to add information to the IANA database, e.g.
whois info, dispute resolution policies, and so forth.
JE - Great idea.
Jason Hendeles - Link or copy dispute resolution policies, clear
registration policy, delegation disputes, registration format - what are the
fields required by a ccTLD. What is the process for modification or change.
What is the whois server URL or information. Day-to-day contact
information. List of lawyers/relationships in the ccTLDs.
Dennis Jennings - Top 5 issues of concern to CENTR members: (1) Agreement
for root services (2) Relationship between ccTLDs and ICANN (3) Best
practices (4) Change of ccTLD managers (5) Funding. On the second point, I
am heartened by your comments for a peer-to-peer relationship. Quite a
number of ccTLDs are thinking of a ccTLD organization separately from the
ccTLD constituency within the DNSO. In regard to the question of root
services, will read from CENTR document:
1. ICANN
2. Primary and secondary zone files will be maintained
3. Will operate NS that are exclusively for TLDs, no SLDs
4. ICANN services shall be carried out as urgent, normal, and
administrative, with appropriate response times
5. ICANN will maintain relationships with ccTLDs collectively
6. ICANN will make monthly publications
7. ICANN will consult with ccTLDs before undertaking major changes
AM - Is there a URL?
DJ - No, we want to talk about it at the ccTLD constituency this afternoon.
Budi (.ID) - I trust IANA and Jon Postel. Whatever IANA says, I obey. But
I don't understand what ICANN is, and what my relationship with ICANN is.
If it doesn't change, I will stick with IANA. In terms of root nameservers,
what we need is that it is stable and not expensive. That's important - why
does there need to be $2 million dollar root nameservers. Another question
is can't ICANN just stick to gTLDs, and IANA stick to ccTLDs. If it's not
broken, don't fix it.
Kilnam Chon - Have to define what the ICP series is. Let's discuss that,
we may not need it. 30 years ago, when we came up with RFC1, we discussed
where it should go. We really need to understand where this series goes.
Just for TLDs, or for SOs also. IANA needs to justify why there needs to be
a new series. IETF should be asked if there should be a new document
series. We don't feel comfortable with is that all of a sudden there's an
ICP series. We need to discuss, Do we need a new document series, not just
throw them out there. There needs to be a consensus.
LT - Useful to have a discussion and decide what procedures ought to be
followed. Part of this comes from the IETF narrowing its scope.
Originally all this was developed through IETF standards, but the IETF
decided that it was inappropriate for them to continue in the area.
AM - Will take full responsibility for the name ICP-1. All ICANN documents
should be numbered, and it is only my slowness that other ICANN documents
should be numbered as well. ICP just stands for "ICANN Corporate Policy."
Kilnam - You might come up with a good idea, almost accidentally. My
question is where to discuss this issue.
Peter Dengate Thrush - Question between relationship between ccTLDs and
IANA. We support types of things that CENTR proposed. As a lawyer, here
are what I would like to see
1. Reassured as to DOC's right to contract with IANA/ICANN. Reassurances as
to DOC's role
2. Reassured that a change of administration in the US won't change the
terms of the contract.
3. Where do we find the current contract between DOC and IANA
4. What does authenticate mean? What is the result of non-authentication.
Who do I sue (if I had a client) in case of non-authentication
6. What is the status legally between the US DOC and a ccTLD manager who is
in fact a national government.
Joel Disini - Wants to address two things that no-one has addressed here.
(1) That ccTLDs are monopolies in their countries. In India, Hong Kong,
Singapore, France, Spain, Philippines, there are more .coms than national
domains. Not monopolies, there is a lot of competition. (2) There are a
lot of countries not represented here where the governments are completely
corrupt, where the only way to do business is to get in bed with the
government.
Willie Black - Let's get to the point where ICANN has legitimacy because it
has signed contracts with all the 240 TLDs. We don't want *any* government
contract.
George Daniel - Have been operating on a relationship of trust with IANA.
One of the weak links is the question - "By what authority are you the
manager of this TLD" - to which the answer is to point to a list on a
website
AM - We are all in complete agreement on that score. We're not Jon, so we
don't think you have any reason to trust us. We are trust building. We
recognize that the informal relationships of the past are no longer enough.
Patrick O'Brien - We want to assure that we are contracting with ICANN, not
with a government. Don't want to see a series of documents. Would be happy
to see RFC 1591 and any other successor go away in favor of a simple
contract. Would support having the country codes as a body dealing with
ICANN in contract negotiations.
JE - Next agenda item. New TLDs. New ccTLDs authorized but not yet
delegated, .PS for instance. There are two undelegated ccTLDs, Western
Sahara (.EH) and North Korea (.KP). Introduce Jonathan Weinberg of Working
Group C which is studying new gTLDs.
Jonathan Weinberg - Co-chair of WG-C. DNSO generates recommendations for
ICANN. Working group has an open membership, and has participants from
widely varying viewpoints. Great deal of vigorous discussion on these
questions. The news is that within the past few days the WG generated an
interim report, which can be found on the DNSO website
(<http://www.dnso.org/>http://www.dnso.org). Soon there will be a request for
comments. The
actual conclusions listed in the interim report are not extensive. Basically
there are two policy items which we believe have consensus, and a slew of
position papers by different groups. Please read and tell us what you
think. The 2 items of agreement are: (1) There should be new gTLDs (2)
ICANN to introduce 6 - 10 new gTLDs then a review period to see if there
were problems - and, if there was no problem, they would go ahead with more
gTLDs. As far as other issues are concerned, there is no consensus yet.
Budi - What are the new domain names?
JW - There are none decided yet, and it is also not decided who will decide
what they are. There are various proposals on the floor. ICANN decides, a
standing working group to decide, the registries themselves would decide -
these are all proposals. One exception is .NAA, for "North American
Aboriginals", specialized domain.
Dennis Jennings - Haven't read the document. I'm neutral about new gTLDs.
Does the document answer the questions: Why new gTLDs, and what benefit
accrues to the Internet community.
JW - Document divided into two parts. Part One describes the consensus of
the WG - 2.5 pages long, then 30 pages of the position papers. The
consensus doesn't give reasons, although the position papers do. Almost all
of the proposals give a reason for why. At such time as there is a final
report, the language of that paper would answer those questions.
Naomasa - You mentioned the creation of .NA...
JW - No, it's .NAA. Just a proposal, one of several position papers, not
official.
Naomasa - If it's North America, there could be other regions, who decides.
JW - The various position papers contemplate different approaches for who
would choose new gTLDs. The author of the .NAA proposal contemplates that
ICANN would select the strings, and that they start with .NAA.
Jim Higgins - Why does .NAA have to be a generic TLD. Why isn't .NAA under
.US?
JW - The position paper process as follows: The co-chairs issued a request
to members of the working group to come up with position papers to reflect
their views. Seven appeared. Some proposals had more signatures than
others. The fact that it's included in the interim report doesn't imply any
official status.
Patrick O'Brien - There are 6 million sheep in New Zealand - shouldn't they
have their own gTLD. What is the process.
MA - The process is that the DNSO is supposed to find a consensus, ratified
by the NC, sent out for public review by ICANN Board, then sent to other
SOs, then Board takes a vote. There's a long row to hoe.
JW - The most we have is a consensus of a working group on a very few
points. Hopefully there will be enough consensus to bring forward a
coherent set of recommendations to the DNSO. Would like to reinforce the
idea that the WG-C has a limited ability - we are self-selected. Hopefully
we'll come up with something that are good ideas, and that they will
represent a consensus.
Craig Simon - WG-C clarification. Dennis Jenning's question about why.
Speculation has driven prices, new gTLDs will bring price down.
Dennis Jennings - It would be useful if the work were structured in such a
way that people who like myself consider their time valuable can read over
the work quickly. .NAA brings to mind a new ccTLD called .EU.
Elisabeth Porteneuve - My understanding was that there is a big pressure to
have new gTLDs because .US doesn't work. Some brand names cannot be
enforced on an international level. What's happening with .US.
Zita Wenzel - Currently undergoing discussions for changes in .US. Just
beginning discussions.
AM - Points out new and old ICANN Board members here - Pindar Wong, Eugenio
Triana, Greg Crew.
JE - Registry/registrar structures. Asked Willie Black to come up to
explain the Nominet model.
WB - Nominet UK started 1996, taking over from volunteer work by myself and
Dr. Kirstein. Following principles of 1591, transferred to WB. Meeting of
100 people, proposal to create Nominet. Set up as company limited by
guaranteed, a not-for-profit. Doing 100,000 per month. The membership
actually own the company. 500 pounds entry fee, then 100 pounds per year.
Membership can hire and fire directors, but they also act in a steering
company capacity. But they don't own a share, the Board doesn't have to be
concerned with shareholder value. If I had shareholders, I would have make
those shares valuable. That's totally the wrong view, because we are a
monopoly. The members act as agents for customers, the registrants. In the
same way, you would use a trademark agent. Nominet will register names
directly as a last resort. There is a 3-way legal relationship.
Of course we are a monopoly. Talked to the UK govt, and DGIV of the
European Commission. They agreed that this would be a benign monopoly, if
three conditions met: (1) cost, not profit oriented (2) non-discriminatory
(3) efficient. In addition, a monopoly must do the minimum in order to make
things work. Nominet has four basic functions.
1. Ensure the integrity and contents and quality of the database; also data
protection and privacy concerns
2. Consistent and fair process - don't take sides in disputes
3. Provide public and authoritative whois database. Not all information,
because some is private.
4. Dispute resolution - mediative role. Not arbitration, just mediation.
Nominet just ducks. Nominet has not been successfully sued.
Nominet issues a certificate. On the back is a transfer document, which is
the way to transfer the name. Also coming with the certificate is a reply
form, which asks the registrant to correct and update information. This
keeps the quality of the database good. Also serves as confirmation of the
contract between registrant and registry.
JE - Is there a place online
WB - <http://www.nominet.org.uk/>http://www.nominet.org.uk
JE - There are lots of successful models. Asked Willie to come because some
managers had asked how they could do this.
JE - Last agenda item before open microphone. There is some Y2K information
available on the ICANN website, one of the authors being Bill Manning of
IANA [he points him out in the room]. There is also an information session
on Thursday in Room 214. Not an ICANN-sanctioned meeting, but lots of good
information. From 9 to about 10 am.

Patrick O'Brien - Are the root servers going to be working properly.
JE - Yes, they have all certified that they will compliant.
JE - The main lesson is to update your version of BIND.

Bill Manning - The root server people decided to take a more proactive
stance to see what was going on with ccTLDs. A handful were found to be
non-compliant. Email was sent all of these, some replied, most did not.
The real problem is that you are open to hackers. There are about 20 - 30
ccTLDs. Can be found on the ICANN site.
[Meeting ends]