Minutes of ccTLD Plenary meeting on 12 Nov. 2000

 

Location: Courtyard by Marriott Hotel, Playa del Rey Room.

 

Written by Abhisak Chulya.

 

1.      Registration and welcome (8:00 – 9:30) with morning refreshments

 

Peter de Blanc, Chair of AdCom, welcomed all participants.

 

2.      AdCom Face-to-Face meeting (8:30 – 9:30)

 

Please go to http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/adcom/20001112.ACmdr-minutes.html

 

3.      Plenary Session I (9:30 – 12:30)

Chair, Peter de Blanc (PB)

Co-Chair, Peter Dengate Thrush (PT)

AdCom, Patricio Poblete (PP) and Bill Semich (BS) for Antony Van Couvering

 

3.1  Review and approval of Agenda and selection of “Action Items”

3.2  Secretariat Progress Report

Abhisak Chulya (AC) presented the progress of Secretariat for the period of  3 July to 31 October, 2000.

3.3  Financial Outlook and Status Report

AC presented the financial outlook through March 30, 2001 and details of financial status of each month up to December, 2000.

3.4  AdCom and Names Council Report, New gTLDs (Patricio Poblete)

The meeting expressed disappointment on the election of ICANN Board member that there is no support from other constituencies.  DNSO Review has been posted but not much interest or participation at the time.

Elisabeth Porteneuve (EP), DNSO Secretariat, expressed concern that there was nothing done since Yokohama meeting and all of the work done in DNSO were voluntary.  Peter Dengate Thrush (PT) commented that this would be an opportunity to recreate DNSO.

On new gTLDs, EP mentioned that we had done nothing since the request of applications.  ICANN, by two lawyers, were selecting the applicants alone and this was not correct.

PP suggested to the meeting that we focus on new things and leave this meeting with good progress.

3.5  Joint ccTLD-APTLD meeting Report

PB and PT were in Bangkok for APTLD and AP* meetings.  Joint outreach program with APTLD will be carried out by Secretariat.  The .eu TLD and ICANN funding had been discussed.  PT mentioned that APTLD would not pay any invoices from ICANN.  ccTLD held an AdCom meeting as well in Thailand.

3.6  Secretariat Funding and Election Process

PB announced that regarding the Permanent Secretariat Election Process the time table will be as follow:

·        November 30, 2000 - RFP will be issued using the old one with some modifications.  Comments will be accepted until December 15 and then incorporate into RFP.

·        December 31, 2000 - The final RFP will be posted.

·        January 31, 2001 – Deadline for submission of the proposals.

·        February 28, 2001 – Announce result of the Permanent Secretariat.

There will be one-month period until March 30, 2001 to transfer the work of new Secretariat if the new one is different from the current one.

 

Sabine Dolderer (SD) of DENIC commented that CENTR did support Secretatriat.  Herbert Vizthum of .AT stated that it was up to CENTR’s members to donate to ccTLD Secretariat.  Fay Howard, GM of CENTR, announced that the following members of CENTR had pledged to donate to Secretariat: .uk $2,000, .no $1,500, .ie $500, .nl $5,000, .at $500, .il $1,000, .de $2,000, for a total of $12,500.

 

3.7  ICANN Funding

On Nov. 10, 2000, ICANN posted the document: Staff Working Paper: ICANN Cost Recovery Structure for Domain Name Registries.  BS presented the overview of this document to the meeting.  ICANN no longer noticed whether you are ccTLD or not.  The assumptions are a) all TLDs should pay ICANN, b) fees based on ICANN budget and c) fees based on business structure.  Registrars will not have to pay ICANN.

 

Discussions:

Morton of .il: All TLDs should pay ICANN if ICANN could come up with service models.  ICANN budget is totally absurd.  Any organization should put their budget where the money is coming in.   Fee structure should base on what and how we want to do it.  Details are not quite important.  But the bigger picture is what this document tried to hide.

 

PT: First, we should challenge the assumptions that If there was any agreement at all on any of these, partly was our fault because as ccTLD Constituency we didn’t publish comments on any Task Force Report before it published.  The point is there had been no consultation with any individual ccTLDs or any organizations.  There has been no bottom up approaches from ICANN developing these task forces or budget.   There would be a little bit of policy coordination which I predicted it will be.   As from .nz, my constituency has to pay 50, 60 or 70 thousand USD.  So it seems to be a real need for a link between what we get from this policy coordination and the fee.  Why that policy coordination should be linked to a number of Domain Names is totally arbitrary.  Secondly, if we are to pay off the basis of this policy coordination, my organization which has 80,000 registrations should receive the same deal as .uk which has two million.  Policy coordination does not change as the size of registry changes.  

 

Sabine of .de: What benefit we will get from ICANN?  I think there is no benefit from ICANN      I strongly disagree with this paper especially with the Domain Names basis.

 

Elisabeth of .fr: I was very positive with ICANN in the past.  As for fiscal year 1999, they got approximately 1 million USD from registries and some funds from registrars.  As for registries, ICANN hired staff dedicated for registrars but no staff as I understand dedicated for ccTLDs.  I would like to see somewhere not only the root server but how ICANN will serve us.  There are necessary works to take care from us and I don’t see anything from ICANN budget on this part.

 

Marcel Schneider of .ch: Unless we have formal relationship with ICANN, we can not pay to the American company.

 

Herbert Vizthum of .at: Why the budget exploded to 5 million USD? I don’t know ICANN approaches.

 

Kilnam Chon of .kr: Firstly, It is about time that ccTLDs should act proactively rather than complaining about this document.  If we don’t do it, ICANN will probably set the pace.  We know ICANN needs a several million dollars.  Who is going to decide the structure is appropriate?  Should we be in the driver seat instead of the passenger seat.   My suggestion is to set up working group or some group by tomorrow and this group will be working as interim for next several months or more.   Secondly, we need to collaborate with gTLDs this time.  Working alone within cctld alone may not solve the problems.  I would like to propose a coulple of  these fundamental issues.  A) ICANN contribution breakdown between IP address and TLDs which currently is 10% versus 90 %.  Is this ok?  Should it be 50:50 ratio?  It’s about time we address this issue.  We should come up with our own paper.  B) this is the first document that does not distinguish between ccTLDs and gTLDs.  This is a fundament issue that we must address.  Are we going to insist that they are in one group which cover the whole spectrum?   C) many of us have talked to ICANN staff, we never convince them that the self-select will work for a long term.  It may work once, twice or three times.  But we just can’t convince them that it will work for the next ten or twenty years.  We may not even convince ourself either.  We have to address this issues.  What kind of contribution structure will be stable?  We should be able to convince either ICANN staff or ICANN Board.  We should come up with Position Statement by the end of this meeting.

 

Hilde Thunem of .no: ICANN has making one step forward and that is they stopped sending invoices.  The problem is we don’t have agreement with ICANN yet.  Perhaps that is the most important thing to us.  What do we get and what’s the benefit?  That’s what we need to clarify before we start talking seriously about numbers.

 

Fay Howard of CENTR: Express disappointment that ICANN posted this document before the start of this meeting.  There is not enough time to review it.   I am worried about the responsibility to our regional ccTLDs.  As for CENTR, we are trying to go with flat fee for 3 or 5 years and may be escalated due to inflation.

 

PT: I agree with Prof. Chon.  We should be very clear on gTLDs and ccTLDs.  What are the alternatives of structure we can go to if we withdraw the cooperation with ICANN?  As far as I can tell, ICANN maintains the root server of 242 cctlds.  What is the alternative that ICANN maintain that file?  We need a working group just to establish what the alternative is.

 

Marcel Schneider of .ch: I am in favor of setting such a group seeking a new alternative.

 

Sue Leader of .nz: The thing that seems to happen again is ICANN staff deliver document just about we got on the airplane.  And we are spending time on their agenda instead of getting on with our agenda.  One point of concern is we are buying into somebody else definition of open, close, commercial, noncommercial.  We should get on with our work.

 

Stephen Deerhake of .as:  I just did the math for .as and it’s 4.40 USD for each name.  I encourage people to do the math especially small registries.

 

Maomasa of .jp: I was a member of credential task force last year.  Member has several teleconferences and finally discussed last year at LA meeting.  I gave some changes to the draft but as you can see from the web site of ICANN and it’s not the final report.   The task force agree that ccTLD registries should determine amount themselves.  There are a number of models that could be used.  What we should do is we should recommend some alternative to this ICANN staff paper.  The short story after the draft of final report has come out is that Mike Roberts contact CENTR people.   But there is no other contact with ccTLDs.   Last May ICANN sent invoices to all ccTLDs and in that invoice there were some statements that said there was no proposal to cctld community after the final report.  It’s kind of strange.  It’s very clear that what we should do now is to come up with some alternative.  The situation has not changed for one year.

 

Elisabeth of .fr:  I want to make sure that this ICANN staff document is about fiscal year 2000 – 2001.  It’s not written up front.

 

BS:  The staff document talked about current fiscal year.

 

Sabine of .de: They have talked about a lot of money they have already invoiced from registrars and perhaps got from registrars.

 

BS:  They are billing on quarterly basis.  I imagine they feel they can pick up at any time.

 

Maosama of .jp: Final report from task force, funding is just for last year.

 

Elisabeth of .fr: We are now in position to review the ratio 90:10 (domain names : IP addresses).  This issue should be addressed.  I personally had discussion with Mike Roberts on this subject and even himself admitted that it should be converted to 50:50.

 

PB: As a .vi manager, not as a chair, I would like to support Kilnam Chon’s.  We, ccTLDs, continuously get new documents from ICANN that tells us how they are going to calculate the amount from us but we never get documents that said what services we are going to get.  From a proactive stand point, we do want to come up with a drafting committee that will be working during today and tomorrow.  What is it that we want? I heard something here I certainly agree with.  From a stand point of America, we want foreign economic process.  From the stand point of the world, we want non us eccentric economic process.  There is no big expenditure going on in other parts of the world.  So we don’t have the economic process.  There is clear evidence that money come from registrars got spent some way.  We have to ask what services that we want.  Or we want no service other than the root server.  What is it that we want that will make us feel better about supporting this organization.

 

Elisabeth of .fr:  How we may establish close relationship within ourself (each cctld).   How we may bring all of our members together.

 

Lunch Break.  Sponsored by Worldnames, Inc., i-DNS.net, and Melbourne IT.

 

4.      Plenary Session II (14:00 – 18:00)

 

4.1  Presentations (sponsors)

·        EResolutions, presented by Dr.Fabien Gelinas

·        WIPO, presented by Francis Gurry, Assistant Director General

 

4.2  Constituency Issues

·        Delegation of ccTLDs (.EU registry):

 

PB asked Fay Howard and Herbert Vizthum to tell the audience about what’s going on with .eu registry.

Fay Howard of CENTR: Last year the commission was ready to consult paper about draft outline policy of creation of .eu registry.  It has been talked about for years.  European feel that it is a legitimate to have .eu instead of .com.  CENTR is a bit concern that it didn’t go that far.  In February of this year, we held a meeting in Brussel which we invited all aspect of the Internet community to discuss about pros and cons.  Following that we wrote quite a detail of report to the Commissioner.  A lot of concerns about creating one more space that is different that trademarks, not enough of information of how it would work, how the registry work, who would be able to register, etc.  We gave this report into the process and after a few weeks a steering committee was created with CENTR involved as well as ISPs, Registrars and other major players.

Herbert Vizthum: I was there as a registry to give some experience to the group.  As for .eu registry, it should be divided into two bodies: one as a registry, like NSI, but it’s a non-profit organization and the other body is a policy formation organization which mainly under Chris Wilkenson and he would make decision.  They also make contracts for registrars.  At the moment there is not much going on but I would like to make one comment on ISO3166 list.  The reason that .eu was on that list because of the European currency, not for ccTLD. 

Fay Howard: Very important thing.  ICANN Board resolution does not permit the creation of .eu ccTLD until after agreement has been reach between ccTLDs and ICANN which is what we all want.

BY Kim of .kr:  I don’t understand why ISO3166 list would have .eu as a currency initially.

Fay Howard: This was done in the past.  IANA did sometime allow this code but since ICANN resolution they are very careful.  

Elisabeth of .fr: It was indeed the recent past.  It’s 1997.  And it’s Jon Postel decision to create this list.

PT: How the application to ICANN arrived?

Herbert: It’s no longer the GAC best practice will apply for .eu.  That means the European Commission will decide which organization will be the key for the delegation.  You have to have agreement if you would like to be a registry with the EC.  And EC will ask IANA to delegate .eu to that organization and after that they will do so if the registry follows their technical standard.

PT: What we can take out of this in dealing with GAC and ICANN?

Herbert: I don’t think we can learn much from this because this is a unique situation.  We have all our delegations and this is grandfather system which is not taken into account at the moment.  But .eu is a new registry and it’s some kind of a new country which is not a country.  So we can use as a specific sample.

PB: We can’t use it directly right now.  One of the thing that came up in AP Retreat in Bangkok is that the whole idea to get some string into  ISO3166, there are also some reserve words.  I have to go through a lengthy process to get this list which no longer available on the web site.  There are a lot of three letter and four letter strings as well as two letter strings that already in there.  Apparently at this point it doesn’t matter they are in there because of postage stamps or some sort of currency or whatever but some how they are in there and it can be TLD.  What was brought up in AP Retreat by Kilnam and some AP folks is what about .ap for Asia Pacific or .af for African, how they get in there.  If there is a precedent for .eu to get in there, then how some strings that already in there become a TLD.  Perhaps we should address in a question to ICANN.

Herbert: First point, if you are interested to learn more about ISO3166 list, I would propose to invite them to come to ICANN meeting in Sweden.  Second point, what we do learn from this.   We learn that ICANN and IANA are now fully the GAC Re/delegation best practice I am wondering because the board has never decided on this point.

Carsten of .de: What has been resolved by the body of .eu was every two letter code on the reserve list is reserved for all purposes.  It can be treated by the cctld delegation process if the application for cctld is on the list.  In fact the selection of .eu is because the only two letter code on the reserve list for all purposes is .eu.  Another point is I still concern about the fact that it’s such a big issue of .eu or not .eu.  It simply resolved by some slight adjustment or interpretation of the rules.  It would be a good idea to point these out during the Plenary session.

Sabine: I think the problem we all have is ICANN presented the paper one day in advance to pass the resolution to the board without consulting any body.  That is a major problem that we all have.  It’s not a problem about .eu or funding.  It’s about a process.

Elisabeth of .fr: Before the ICANN board made a decision on .eu, there was a letter from EU Commissioner to DOC of US to request for .eu and the first answer Wilkenson got from Mike Roberts was NO.  Then, they went through the process of creating the additional category of ISO code and then the second time, ICANN board accepted.  If we request cctld to have a say to entering the new code, it’s like we give ourself a power to decide and at this level I don’t feel comfortable.

Sabine: I agree with Elisabeth.

Fay Howard: As to the original question: what would the impact be for TLDs?

BY Kim: If .ap for Asia Pacific wants to apply, it would be under gTLD categories while .eu is under ccTLD categories.  How complicate it is.

PB: You certainly want to be in ccTLD categories because firstly you don’t have to pay $50,000 application fee, and secondly, you are not in that high tax categories.

Herbert: It is very simple.  If you are in gTLDs, you are under ICANN policy.  But if you are in ccTLDs, you can make your own policy.  It’s not the question of money.  It’s politics.

 

Action Items:

1. Do we have a general consensus on this statement: “We are not satisfied with the process as exhibited by several different examples of the ICANN putting out the memos”.    Yes, we have consensus.

2. Set up a drafting committee to draft a statement to ICANN which will be presented on 14 Nov. during IANA/ccTLD Admin meeting.  Drafting committee is composed of Sabine Dolderer of .de (EUROPE), Oscar Robles of .mx, (LACTLD) and a gentlemen from .bi (African TLD).

 

·        Best Practices

Gennady Pritsker (GP) of IATLD presented the lastest version of Best Practice document (version 3.3.3).

 

Questions from the floor:

PT: In 3.1, where do you get a basis in all for the statement that authority of ccTLD manager comes as part of the overall authority of IANA?  And is there alternative that this is agreement to cooperate with IANA rather than a recognition of authority by IANA?

GP: This is a formulation specifically the words “the overall authority of IANA” existed in it early on.

Sabine of .de: My authority comes from the local Internet community and from no one else.  I don’t get any authority from IANA.

PT: Let me rephrase this point: “The authority comes together from the local Internet community and IANA” or “it comes from only the local Internet community”.

Sue Leader of .nz: Are we changing 1591 or are we saying 1591 is no longer relevant and therefore we make a new set of rules?

Willie Black of .uk: I think it’s a matter of interpretation of 1591.  For this document, I think it’s much too details.  It goes into many areas that a code of best practices should not go into.  I would really urge to cut this document to minimum required.

PT: Are there any principles in this document that you disagreed with?

Willie Black: There are several points that have been raised on the list that still remain there.

GP: We will have a drafting session tomorrow.  Please come so we can make changes on those points.

Fay Howard: CENTR Best Practices documents actually has been approved.  Perhaps we can use as basis for drafting session tomorrow.

Patricio: I agree with Willie that this document has too much details but perhaps that the consequences of what we try to accommodate all problems from all sources.  Also we should not forget to decide at what point to split the best practices and redelegations.  I feel that when we discuss about the source of authority at the expense of other document but not this one.  At the end of section 2, we should remove the definition of ccTLD disputed resolution body because the name is confusing with domain names dispute resolution body.  In section 3.1, it mentioned that ICANN notify when some domain names is restricted.  I don’t think that is ICANN function.

Agathoclis Stylianou of .cy and Elisabeth of .fr: pointed out on section 3.3.4 that it should be only “ccTLD Managers shall operate either under the law of the country or territory of the ccTLD”.  The rest of that sentence should be out.

BS: As I understand that there are many diverse businesses and other kinds of structure that 1591 has allowed to exit as cctld managers.  It is true that European approach is somewhat more monolithic and more unified mechanism among European registries because they are in more comfortable political environment.  But a lot of ccTLDs exist in different circumstances, political turmoil, many different kinds of structure both politically and business point of view, developed as a result of loose mechanism of 1591 allowed for the delegation of ccTLDs.  We tried to address many concerns and how cctld can manage.  We have a single approach, CENTR approach, and some ccTLDs have made a pre-determined to go with CENTR document and we will go nowhere.  We will not have a document that is unified.  We need to have a flexibility in drafting process.  A length of this document indicated that there is too much flexibility.  The fact is we try to address too many concerns.  We will address in the drafting session tomorrow.

Sabine: In Yokohama, we were not that far away on Best Practices document.  The main point is still the overall authority.  This one we have to resolve.  “Where the authority comes from”.

 

Fay Howard presented CENTR Best Practices document to the audience.

 

Sue Leader of .nz: What is the process of checking the local Internet community?  How you determine the local Internet community.

Fay: We have some degree left to the individual.  It’s up to cctld itself to define what the local community is.

PT: There is a view at the GAC and ICANN that the proper community that decided about Niue is the citizen of Niue.  But there are many thousand of domain names registrants leave outside Niue.  As far as that ccTLD is concerned, their internet community included both.  This difficulty put us at a disadvantage on the citizen territory.

Fay: That is an example of registry that except the registration around the world.  But your primary duty is the service to your local internet community.

Willie Black: For the Niue, people should get involved and they should have government control even though maybe ten other countries register around the world.  And other people that registered on other country top level domain have to live by that country rules.  They have to learn the risk associated with it.  I would take the mandate from the population in community.

Stafford Guest of .nu: Niue is probably the peculiar situation because it is a small isolated island with 15 – 16 hundred people living on it.  Most of domain names are registered off the island.  If you bring people that live on the island into the picture and this is what it looks like.  There are about 250 camicans on the Niue which include 100 gatmans.  The reason polls we did on the island we found that 99% of the users on the Niue are quite happy with the services operated by the Internet User Society.  Yet, we had a public meeting with government with regards to redelegation of the operation.  And those people that attend the meeting and we were invited to that meeting to see if they feel that the government should run the internet project.  If the government took over, it would have to reequip the situation on the island which will cost the money.  People now get the internet connectivity for nothing.  They didn’t pay anything.  The Internet Users Society pay for it.  If the government took over, people of Niue would have to pay about $200 a month for the connectivity.  We meet the guidelines of RFC1591.  I don’t the dispute quite frankly.

Fay: I don’t make any judgement on the Niue situation. I am just reflecting the CENTR point of view.

Stafford: The discussion on this issue for Niue is just nonsense because people just don’t understand the model that is being used on Niue and it’s probably the only model in the world that people got free connectivity.

PT: I think the issue is that it must be clear who is the local internet community.

BS: We have two ladies representint the people of Niue in the audience.  Please don’t talk about Niue having difficulty picking up who is the local internet community.  We are not asking people of Sweden to vote nor should run the Niue.

Erica Roberts of .la: .la represents Lao.  If we were to go outside government, we would be in danger.  It’s not up to us.  As to how to define the local internet community, we have to go to government because Lao’s government plays a major role.

Fay: I would like to point out the Local Internet Community definition in CENTR Best Practices document:

            “Local Internet Community: The Internet industry and users and the government and authorities of the state or territory with which the ccTLD is associated.  The definition of Local Internet Community may vary from one country/territory to another and is essentially a matter for the community in the country/territory.”

Willie Black: As a cctld manager you have to make sure that all of these are happened.  If the government is a strong player, you have to make sure they are happy because they will step in and shot you down if they are not happy.  You got to make sure local internet users are happy because they are all back up and get government to shot you down.  It’s simple thing.  You got to serve the people that you need to serve and it’s going to vary over time and the countries.

 

·        Re/delegation

Fay Howard: cannot make any decision until some of the authority or contractual issues are sort out and that is the issue right now.

Gennady Prisker presented the summary of the latest version of Re/delegation document.

PT: The reason for this logic is political.  And it all has to do with ICANN project or experiment.  And that is “transfer from government control to self-regulated industry-lead transparent bottom-up processes.  That is what it does, take a dispute about re/delegation and we (cctld community) or industry should lead and we will self-regulate.  We propose that IANA role is simply doing records and try to deviate between the disputing claimers to delegation.  But if that fails, the formal process is something we wrote, we set up a panel we know how to run the ccTLDs.  This is what ICANN and US government is looking for.  They will not be responsible for delegation or redelegation decision because they will get sued.  If you look at the way they behave on another circumstances, what they did in relation to .eu.  They made decision on some one else list.

Willie Black: We should somehow take responsible to the country.  Who ever is going to sue ICANN will sue us on the same ground.  The only way you can do this is voluntarily everybody to my enter.  How did they buy into the contract  with ccTLD community that gave the authority to ccTLD community to do something, it has to be the contract with ICANN.  Delegation and redelegation are not about a separate set of principles.  It’s actually a fundamental term of the contract that we would have with ICANN.  There are only two reasons why contracts come to the end: that ccTLD ceases to exist or it fails to do anything as part of the obligation contract on reasonable notice that the contract has been terminated OR the parties agree to change that.  But the idea of having a panel to say who is the good guy or who is the bad guy will never work.  Ultimately what we can do is the collective peer pressure on a defaulting ccTLD in our mind.  If the governments stink, we can bring the diplomatic pressure on them.  We may even bring the economic pressure on them at the government level.  I am not sure we can do this on ccTLD community.  But we certainly can put some certain pressure.   I don’t think we can do any thing more.  We may be upset on some body running ccTLD in the way that we don’t like.  But ultimately two things can happen, either that person goes away or that person is persuaded to give it up.  This may not be acceptable to the GAC because they already have in their mind they want something else.  And yet they are not prepared to do an international treaty.

PT: When you subscribe to this contract term, you will abide by the decision of the panel which is the same mechanism that UDRP works.  I have more faith in our ability to make it work.

Willie Black: I am not just convinced that the most country will be able to subscribe to that term of contract.

PP: In this draft letter, ICANN thinks for granted that the way to solve this delegation is in the way that the GAC decided what it should be.   The letter should not let the government think that there is an alternative for them to redelegate.

Fay: In September, Chris Wilkenson, who is a European Commission and played a quite active role in GAC, called a meeting in Brussel between ccTLD managers in Europe and GAC representatives and the following day we have the same meeting again with Mike Roberts, Jodi and Andrew McLaughlin.  During the first meeting when we did the tour de town, individual GAC members agree that we should sign the letter with the exception of France and Spain.  Some other GAC members have some difficulties in signing this letter because they have no legal basis to authorize registry.  They also want to put time limit for this to authorize for a number of years.  This is why the talk on contract is stalled for a while which they feel they have to sort these out.

PT: We have to get out the documents we talk about today and tomorrow finished and published.  We have to get out additional delegation/redelegation documents finished and posted.  Otherwise, GAC principle which had not yet been adopted by the board will become sustain.

BS: In APTLD meeting yesterday, we noticed many times that ICANN would make effort to consult European community but not Asia Pacific or other communities.  This has nothing to do with CENTR.  But the direction that ICANN has turned.  They have never consulted APTLD.

 

Actions: Come up with additional documents and comment to draft letter by ICANN.

 

·        ICANN Services

PB:  In Cairo, Kilnam induced myself and Eva to work on this document.  A good example of services we are looking for is like those e-commerce web servers would look for some type of quality service agreement with ISPs that would guarantee availability and uptime.  The ISPs would go to T1 internet backbone companies, i.e. Teleglobe, WorldComm, and get the quality of service guarantees with various penalties from T1 provides.  But there is no mechanism really for dealing with availability issues if the web site is unreachable because TLD went out due to the entry in root server suspended for a day or so.  So our orginal focus on the document was dealing with the quality of services and working collaborative with Eva.  Eva wrote a background for us.  In section 4.2,  talk about the issue when the web server went out.  I made some technical contribution in section 5.1 that talked about we are not necessary in business of providing the availability but in turn out that ITU has a mechanism of defining availability and quality of services so we refer to that document.  Two other things got into this document and we at this point have to decide to take them out or leave them in there.  Those two items are a tie between a contract with ICANN and ccTLD managers specifically Section 4.1.  What cut into this document was ICANN received a kind of legitimacy moving towards giving ICANN independency from the US government because it has a legitimacy support from two hundred countries and on the other sides of that ccTLD administrators will receive the recognition that it is the designate manager at the time that signing the contract and no changes may be made without compliance with the procedures of the Best Practices document.  I suggested we look at document tonight and tomorrow befor we get into the drafting session we decide if we want to remove those items from the document that are the parts of delegation document.  The technical item is just a matter of quality of services, nothing really needs to be done.   But the other item is the service of ICANN but right now is only addressing the root server services.  The other part of ICANN service is to provide ccTLD and tie into 1.5 million USD.  We need to get some input for what it is the ICANN can do for us.  For example, ICANN gets funding from Registrars and ICANN has staff to deal with Registrars.  ICANN gets funding from ccTLDs but ICANN has no staff to deal with ccTLDs.  ICANN never said this is what we will do for you.  Let’s get that into the document.  Let’s get the document close to some thing we can put on our web site and get some consensus on it, not on the controversial term.

Elisabeth: I would like ICANN to provide Outreach service to other ccTLDs that have not participated in this forum both face-to-face and online.

Willie Black: At CENTR, we have draft of ICANN service.  (The document is put up on the projector.) What we want from ICANN services are summarized: 1) Maintain IANA database telling who the managers are.  2) Run the root server system and tell us what changes they do.  The obligation of the managers: follow the best practices, agree to pay so much per years, agree maintain to notify ICANN any changes, agree to maintain web site that tell the world what we do.  We certainly rejected domain names tax from ICANN.

Hong: (Prof. of Law from Korea) To show the model is one thing to use the practice is another.  You may contract to do so much but in fact you don’t have to.

Fay: We are not imposing on any registry.

PB: We will look at this CENTR ICANN service document tomorrow during drafting session.

 

Actions: set up working group during the drafting session tomorrow.

 

Meeting adjourned at 18:00.