| Home | | | Meetings | | | AdCom | | | ccTLD | | | Participants |
31 May and 1 June 2001, Stockholm, Sweden
Fay Howard - Fay Howard (European AdCom)
Cochair - Byung-Kyu Kim (ccTLD Secretariat)
Written By - Seung-Yeon Yoo and Abhisak Chulya
Fay Howard welcomed everybody with the aim to have everybody participate. She also thanked the host for excellent arrangement and facilities.
AdCom Face-to-Face meeting has been postponed to a later time.
Since the status of Bylaws is still a draft, Chair went through the Bylaws document and took comment on each section.
Mission statement section:
"ccTLD Constituency is part of DNSO and the primary goal is to insure fair, equal, and adequate representation for its members for the purposes advancing its aims, positions, and goals respect to internal and external communications, interaction with ICANN, and relations with world wide internet community and general public. Detail respect of ICANN participating in formulation of Guidelines and policy of ICANN to elect three names council members, ensure the views and position papers of ccTLD registries are appropriately communicated, understood, and treated with respect and foster worldwide participations in ICANN, transparent procedures and practices."
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
I am a member of .DE domain, I want to comment on the fact that we are an integral part of DNSO but have no interconnection what we are doing with them and where we stand at that point.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
With regards to Sabine comment, whether we are working on a new structure for ccTLD ccSO, it does not preclude that we may continue to see these articles and among them could have SO.
Fay Howard
Taking Sabine and Elisabeth's comment, we could make this statement less specific to just to talk about forming integral part of the appropriate SO or language which is less specific to domain names organizations. Are there any other comments on the relationship and the mention of DNSO on the mission statement?
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I support what Elisabeth has said and want to move on. Other topics are more important. Now it is not the appropriate time to create a new structure.
Fay Howard
If you make it less specific to DNSO, you move on anyway.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
We could strike the word 3 from "three members" incase that changes from time to time, when we get to talk about more representations.
Membership section:
"Voting Members of the ccTLD constituency are country-code Top Level Domain Registries as recorded in the ICANN/IANA database."
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
We need to get clear on who 'members' and 'represents members' are (through out this document). Is it the registries that are 'members' of the organizations, or the managers of the registries, or the delegates of those registries. How is that a registry itself can belong to an organization like this? Isn't it the organization that represents the registries or more important aren't we trying to reach the local internet community that itself is connected to the registry? This is the critical issue about who we are and whom we represent.
Fay Howard
Are the voting members of ccTLD constituency are managers of ccTLD registries?
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I don't have an answer but should discuss about who people think the ccTLD organization represents, what it is trying to achieve. If it is the managers, if the managers themselves have a direct connection back to the local internet community that are associated with the cc, then I would go along with that. Others may not think that the local internet community is a feature in this, and this is really a very registry oriented organization.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
I would believe that the members of an organization such as this would have to be very definite entities, national persons, or organizations. For instance, someone would say that the member of this organization from Chile, say the local internet committee from Chile, is not a real entity that cannot assume any obligations, subject to paying dues or whatever. So, I would say in our case NIC of Chile or the University of Chile, who is the parent organization of NIC of Chile.
Fay Howard
Need to have clear definition of a "voting member"
"The delegated managers represent the registries in the ccTLD Constituency unless the Registry is an organization, in which case the representative must be an employee or person operating under a contractual relationship with that organization"
We should work on the first definition, for this ties in with it. Membership in the ccTLD Constituency shall end in the event of termination of the contractual relationship between the Delegate and appointing entity. Termination of the appointing entity's membership in the ccTLD Constituency; or the removal by the ccTLD Registry from the IANA database, or the resigning of the Delegate. All ties back to the definition of 'membership' which defines as:
Each ccTLD Registry can withdraw a delegate it has appointed to the ccTLD Constituency and appoint a new delegate at any time. Each delegate to the ccTLD Constituency can resign any time.
Per Koelle (.dk)
On 1.2, I don't think anyone can demand my registry to somebody who is employed, contract, or related. I can give my proxy to anybody to whom I wish.
Please change the wording.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
There is a phrasing problem here in 2.1, 2.2. There is a big confusion between who or what is a member. Is a member the ccTLD a registry or an actual person?
Membership in the ccTLD Constituency shall end in the event of termination of the contractual relationship between the delegate and appointing entity.
This implies that the membership is vested in a natural person rather than in the registry. I think that is wrong because the membership is the ccTLD Constituency belongs to the ccTLD.
Geographical Regions, Geographic Diversity Section:
"The ccTLD Constituency members shall determine their "ICANN regional affiliation", as described in the ICANN bylaws. Their physical geographical region as recorded in any standard world atlas generally defines this affiliation. However, when a corresponding territory is situated between two or more ICANN regions, the ccTLD Registry may self-select its adherence to any but only one of them"
Sue Leader (.nz)
Are we entitled to choose under their agreement?
Fay Howard
How do people feel about having to be in a region defined by ICANN?
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
Random selection by ICANN is not ACCEPTABLE. ITU (R1, R2 and R3) Regions are, however, well established in international use.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
English speaking Caribbean Islands do not speak Spanish, do not trade with Latin America, and have all their relationships between England, North America, and Canada. They do not wish to be on the mailing list in Spanish, communicate in Spanish, and they cannot participate. If they need to make trips, they are not going to make it to South America. We should leave that in our bylaws and if necessary take it to the ICANN board.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
Additional information on ICANN bylaws and this division in 5 regions for purpose of at-large vote, these regions were defined by citizenship. The purpose of at-large or French citizen anyplace in the world is considered being from Europe. We should bring it to the ICANN board.
Kilnam Chon (.kr)
The boundaries between Europe, Asia, and Africa should be addressed satisfactorily. There are several ways to do it. ITU, APNIC agreed on the border-line, APTLD has an informal collaboration with the CENTR. Self-select may make more sense. Forcing the non-participating countries is not wise. Deciding permanently at this moment is risky because many of them do not participate.
Louis Touton (ICANN Staff)
The ICANN bylaws only define geography for names council members. AdCom has some geographical requirements but bylaws do not have affect. Possible solution might be to recognize in your statement, for different purposes there may be different rules that apply, including self-selection.
Fay Howard
Names Council members have no problems.
Louis Touton
It goes by citizenship.
Fay Howard
The purposes for the Names Council election have to come from ICANN region, and the rest can be self-select. ccTLD constituency recognizes the 5 regions and may self-select but for election of 3 names council members, have to use the ICANN definitions.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
The way it is worded, you just have to be between two regions but everybody is between 2 regions. We really need an element of borderline. Does it have to do with cultural belonging or geography? How far do we go? What about the old British colonies who feel part Britain but is located somewhere in Atlantic? What is the principles, the geographical closeness to a border or a cultural thing?
Morton Taragan (.il)
We (Israel) feel closely to European region and don't see under the exact definition how it would work. It depends on how it is understood. Something has to be put in for extenuating circumstances.
Voting roster Section:
"The voting registry of ccTLD Delegates is kept under the responsibility of the AdCom, and shall reflect the official ICANN/IANA whois database. In case of dispute over who is authorized to vote, the ICANN/IANA whois database prevails."
The voting registry will be updated at least once a year pursuant to the below procedure.
A registered, return receipt requested, letter is sent by AdCom to the postal address of that Registry as indicated in the ICANN/IANA whois database, simultaneous with an e-mail advice to the ccTLD manager off the mailing.
A period of 90 days ensues, during which any contact failures are attempted to be resolved.
Should no successful resolution occur, (invalid postal address or invalid e-mail address), this information is passed to the ICANN/IANA and the "failure to communicate" recorded in the whois database.
A public announce is made to inform the ccTLD Constituency that such a Registry is not reachable, and its voting rights are suspended.
The voting registry of ccTLD Delegates is public as is the ICANN/IANA whois database.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
ICANN should have the database verified.
Fay Howard
ccTLD voting roster is as we are provided by ICANN, provided by IANA, database rather than ccTLD constituency itself trying to decide and police the list.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
IANA database does not show a ccTLD registry at all. You see sponsoring organization, admin contact, and tech contact. More and more you can see that there are no names and just functions. Should work on who the person behind it and should be done frequently.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
Voting roster is trying to find out sponsoring organization by sending mail. It should be done by ICANN.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
Sponsoring org is the registry?
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
Whoever we decide the delegate be the member. It has to be verified on a yearly basis by the AdCom. Whois registry should be defined by IANA. Who votes should be taken up out of the registry or sponsoring org. or the person listed on the IANA database. Or do we set up a new database which has some diversion of the IANA database.
Fay Howard
We have to decide how we accept a vote, whether this ties into IANA database or our own. Who should be able to vote?
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
An outside organization should not tell another organization who its members are. Having a dispute where we all recognize IANA database is much out of date, but will always have disputes on delegations, disputes of regions and if we rely on someone else's version of the truth is an indication of our responsibilities. We should be declaring who our members are.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
I agree with Peter. IANA database should be helpful to find the names.
Administrative Committee Section:
6.1. The ccTLD Constituency activities are facilitated and publicly represented by the Administrative Committee (AdCom).
6.1.1. The AdCom membership is composed of:
6.1.2. One member elected by each geographical region's ccTLD delegates.
6.1.3. The Executive Director of the ccTLD Secretariat (non-voting member)
6.1.4. One member from each ccTLD subgroup organization provided that such subgroup represents at least 10 ccTLDs.
6.1.5 Name Council member from ccTLD Constituency who are not the elected Administrative Committee members.
6.2. Annually, when the postal verification is done, each ccTLD Registry is requested to confirm its membership in geographical region and no more than one subgroup.
6.3. If at any time a subgroup's membership decreases below 10 members, its right to representation on the AdCom suspended. The name of subgroups and its membership shall be publicly available on the ccTLD website.
6.4. The Administrative Committee functions include:
6.4.1. Reviewing applications for membership in the ccTLD Constituency and verify the ICANN/IANA database;
6.4.2. Once a year verification of postal address and e-mail address of ccTLD Registries and their Delegates; recording and updating geographical affiliation as well as subgroup membership.
6.4.3. Oversight and direction of the administrative functions associated with the operations of the ccTLD Constituency.
6.4.4. Establishing and supervising a ccTLD Secretariat and its work.
6.4.5. Recruiting and selecting an Executive Director for the ccTLD Secretariat.
6.4.6. The work of the ccTLD Secretariat, and its Executive Director, shall include the arrangement of meetings, preparation and publication of minutes, website and publicly archived mailing lists and documents, maintenance of appropriate mechanisms for facilitating outreach, contact, and dissemination of information among all members, and other secretariat functions required for the adequate functioning of the ccTLD Constituency as may be defined from time to time by the AdCom.
6.4.7. Facilitating discussion between members on all matters relevant to the ccTLD constituency; where appropriate, formulating membership consensus on policy issues for the purpose of advising the Names Council;
6.4.8. Ensure the communication channel between the ccTLD Constituency and its delegates to the DNSO Names Council, and between ccTLD Constituency and the DNSO Secretariat;
6.4.9. Assessing and collecting membership fees, if any
6.5. The term of office for each Administrative Committee position is 24 months.
6.6. Administrative Committee Officers may not be elected for more than two successive terms. Following two such terms, re-election is only possible after an intermediary period of one year even if a different organization appoints her/him as delegate.
6.7. Each Administrative Committee Officer may resign at any time. If an ACO ceases its contractual relationship with a ccTLD Registry he/she shall immediately inform the ccTLD Constituency and resign from the office. Upon application by at least three Delegates and a vote by ccTLD Constituency any Officer may be removed from office.
6.8. If an Administrative Committee Officer resigns from the ccTLD Constituency, or the relationship to Constituency is terminated or s/he is removed from office, a successor shall be elected within three months. The new Officer shall assume the responsibilities of the former Officer for the remaining period of office.
6.9. An Administrative Committee Officer whose term in office ends before the official period s/he was elected for cannot be re-elected for two years if the cause of early termination lies with the Officer, even if, after the loss of office, a different organization appoints her/him as Delegate.
6.10. The Administrative Committee Officers are required to conduct the business of the ccTLD Constituency in accordance with the law, these Articles as well as the resolutions of the ICANN Board and the DNSO Names Council. The Administrative Committee Officers shall select among themselves a Chairman and two Deputies. The Administrative Committee shall define and put in place the ccTLD Constituency Secretariat.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
6.1.4 is odd. Have a few exclusion with the geography. If we had a rule like this, we need to know what the rules to this organization was. To make sure it satisfied some kind of oversight of supervision advisory roll, a burden we would not want to take on. Would someone explain the rational for this rule?
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
The 6.1 states that ccTLD constituency activities are facilitated and publicly represented and names council members fit into that because as elected people, our duty is to represent ccTLD. Therefore, names council members need to be part of the group which is just facilitating and gathering information from ccTLD.
Fay Howard suggested to be observers as oppose to members so there is close liaison.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
I agree with Peter Dengate Thrush with his criticism on 6.1.4. Last year there was a subgroup coming up but not clear how subgroup is defined. Names council Members are the representative of the ccTLD constituency and DNSO, but ccTLD constituency is broader than the DNSO representative. Naturally, we would have both, elected in the Names council and the AdCom, and this would be the best of all.
Morton Taragin (.il)
6.1.4 is not fitting. What is the reason for AdCom all together? It's a committee to handle day to day things. One could think of 6.1.4 ending up with another 17 members on the AdCom. It would not be efficient. This was meant to be a small group that can get together on the phone and take care of administrative things, not a body that does the actual voting. Anything that comes to voting is the ccTLD membership and that is where the power is. This group was meant to be small and has no reason to expand it. When geographical reason is taken up, you've taken care of everything.
Chris Disspain (.au)
6.1.4 could only exist with a degree of exclusivity clause in there as well.
Bill Semich (.nu)
I support of 6.1.4 and 6.1.5. 6.1.4 has been in our bylaws for 2 years and we don't have 17 members in the AdCom. AdCom will not be taken over by agitators. 6.1.4 is there for several reasons. Many ccTLDs have concerns that are not regional. Also, there are regional ccTLDs that don't fit into any regions, because such regions might not exist. Pacific Island nations who really do not feel Asians, they might like to form a sub-group of Pacific Island TLDs once they get organized. The purpose of this particular was to provide for those possibilities. If there is a concern, "No, we should only be a regional organization," we should take that on direct.
Pilar Luque (.es)
I would like to go back to 5, voting rules. Each ccTLD registry is allowed one vote, the voting delegate full identity shall be recorded in the voting registry. We should add something about the voting rules when we are in ccTLD meetings like this. (details on voting, ribbons, etc.)
6.1.5 is a difficulty between this and representation to names councils. (7.1)
Fay Howard
If you are elected to AdCom, you may also be elected to Names Council but should not automatically be in the AdCom.
Per Koelle (.dk)
On 6.1.4 I see both Peter Dengate Thrush and Bill Semich's views. We should leave it in, especially from the Bill's views. If it turns out that this corrupts things, we can amend the bylaws.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
The principle is that the names council representatives represent their regions. So, there is a difference in interests. People in the names council represent the entire constituency. Understanding 6.1.5, we have names council representative attending the AdCom meetings.
Fay Howard
'Attending' is different from being 'part'.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
We need to get the principles clear. Isn't it the principle of the names council representatives that they go to battle on the behalf of us at the names council? We seem to have fractual representatives and constituency representatives.
Bill Semich (.nu)
One simple way to solve some of the discussion points on the names council participation is that, I note that nowhere in here says that there is voting because AdCom is an administrative committee and not a policy action committee that takes votes. The reason we are talking about voting is that somehow 6.1.3 found its way here with the parenthesis 'non-voting member', but perhaps we should change the wording to 'observer'. We are not saying that there are any voting members. Even when names council representatives participated as observers, we always asked them for their opinions.
Fay Howard
It should say 'observers' for the names council members as well and we can move on.
Sue Leader (.nz)
6.1.4, I am still uncomfortable about this because of the risk of splitting up. We have been working very hard to get representation on geographical regions. If it is important that there is flexibility, it should actually state that they may not be members of both geographical region and a grouping under 6.1.4, for there is a chance for 'double dipping'. If there is a geographical region that doesn't have 10 active ccTLDs, they would appear to be excluded from representation, like Africa.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
There is a big confusion here. I looked at the past constitution of ccTLD constituency and is quite different from this. It was agreed in Berlin and has been approved by the ICANN board. I am puzzled as to why what we are doing nowadays does not correspond to what has been approved by the ICANN board. The idea of names council members being members of the AdCom appears nowhere. It has appeared couple of years ago out of thin air. If we start doing things that are not written down properly, you put yourself in great danger from liability. You end up trying to find out who is supposed to do what and you can't. I caution against doing anything that we haven't agreed, that has been voted on by meetings such as this, confirmed by a postal vote of the ccTLD constituency and then has been submitted to the ICANN board and approved. We should follow the constitution and take procedures to change it.
Fay Howard
We had great success with working group. We should have one and sit down with the original Berlin document and put any idea that comes out of this meeting on the drafting committee, rather than trying to go through all of this because it is very time consuming.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
One comment on Nigel's comment. I would take in a total opposite view. I don't believe ccTLD constituency has to supplicate itself to ICANN to have its bylaws approved. I do agree with Nigel, if we wish to establish bylaws, it is up to us in the bottom up consensus driven process to determine what our bylaws are and it is not up to ICANN to determine what our bylaws are.
Fay Howard
If you want to be a recognized constituent of DNSO, you have to have your bylaws approved by ICANN.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I agree with principles Peter annunciated and is a touchdown for where we are and where we should be. However, 2 years ago in Berlin, we set principle with all ccTLDs who were all involved in the ICANN process, and almost unanimously agreed with the principles we set up. And the ICANN board did not like some of them and said we will not recognize them, so we had to change them. We are the creature of ICANN, not the other way around.
Willie Black (.uk)
I would like to comment on the process of what we are going through, rather puzzled.
We did improve some bylaws in Berlin and they were voted on. What gives me a little concern is that the concept document of July 2000, I don 't recall, being voted on. Maybe they were but I think they were doctored in some way, and I am concerned about the process. I have no objections to 6.1.4 or 6.1.5, I think as long as we understand that the AdCom is there to administer, to facilitate, but not to make decisions, then I have no problem who is on the AdCom. I kind of agree with Bill, lucky to get people to do it anyway. As long as we make sure that AdCom doesn't have powers to make decisions on behalf of anybody except routine decisions of organization, then I am content with 6.1.4 or 6.1.5. But concerned with the process we are going through. I would suggest that we break down into groups and come back to this meeting with a revised version, having beat out the issues from the main meeting and then it should go for a vote for all the members of the constituency and then be formally adopted so that we know that we have replaced the Berlin ones for certain.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
I would like to ask somebody to explain to us or to me, some of the process for this. I have several questions because perhaps maybe I wasn't paying attention to this particular area. Do we have or not have some set of bylaws actually in effect now, and are those the Berlin Principles? (Fay Howard- yes) Ok. And were those the principles, was Peter de Blanc, as it says on the bottom, the one who drafted those principles, or is Peter de Blanc is responsible for this newer version? Perhaps we should have had Peter De Blanc and Kilnam Chon explaining to us how we got to have this draft for discussion today and what the process was. Also, particularly to explain to us what the differences are between the current bylaws and this one. What is the main difference? Those are the ones we should be focusing more.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I would like to support what Willie Black said, it's an excellent idea. I would also comment on the Berlin principles. I've been in Berlin and there were about 50 people in the room, nobody checked who we were, it was the first start process which was difficult. We had in the room plenty of ccTLD managers but also plenty of people just curious about how we work. So, it was important we had this start of principles but I don't believe it is something very sanctified. We decided, as far as I recall and is drafted somewhere is this Berlin notes, that the first thing ccTLD group will do is just to revisit and to be sure that we agree what we said in Berlin. And just to verify.
Fay Howard
I think that is absolutely correct, but at the moment they are the bylaws that are recognized by ICANN. I'm getting little bit of support for having a break away group during the next couple of days to work on this and I would like some opinions now whether you would like to continue to go through this document and/or you would like some people to work on a new draft.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
I support having a working group, for further versions of this draft, not only a new draft. The differences should be highlighted from the old draft for somebody who wants a short summary. I would also like to know who has drafted and from which group it is presented.
Fay Howard
I propose to adjourn this item and ask for some volunteers who would take the old Berlin document and maybe this one, and do some redrafting somewhere to one side. Maybe we can ask those involved in the redrafting to then demonstrate what is different in the new document from the previous one and the Berlin document. We set a few people to one side to work on this, like we have done in previous meetings in working groups to set some new principles out using the Berlin document and comment that we have taken from this document and this meeting and come back to us later on in the agenda. We can slot in a session and maybe the AdCom, when they meet, can do this and then we can come back with something for people to look at tomorrow. Is that a good idea? Any volunteers to do some work?
Morton Taragin (.il)
That's a very good idea but I think to keep things going straight, I would recommend that the procedure be to start with the Berlin document and make amendments to that, and specify why the amendments are being made. Then the rational can be understood and those different points might be voted on.
Fay Howard
Is everybody happy with that? Any volunteers for this working group?
Willie Black (.uk)
It will depend on when the working groups will meet.
Fay Howard
We had valuable input but have to move on.
Willie Black (.uk)
Could I make a suggestion that you briefly just go through some of the issues that people might have because it would be useful in plenary here, to know if there are issues. I don't think we should be drafting them on the fly and that is what I felt we were endangering of doing. So if there are issues that people want to flag, let's have them on the table so that the drafting group can then chew them over. We should spend some minutes going briefly through.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
Can I talk about an issue of voting and this is kind of Pilar's point as to mechanism, also as to principle. It is being used both for and against developing motions that we have in the various meetings, that we have to go back to the members with the motions that are reached at these meetings. I would like to suggest for that the motions we take at these meetings, provided they are within a month, ratified by a list vote.
Fay Howard
There should be something added to the bylaws.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
Yes, at the moment our principle is, it seems to be me that we don't have any decisions until the list votes occurs, and I think that dilutes and defeats quite a lot of hard work that we do at these meetings; traveling for 36 hours to get here, and debating with each other, compromising, understanding, going through the process that only a face-to-face meeting can give us. Then we go away and put it back on the list, and sometimes we don't even do that because things go wrong or somebody forgets. We take one step forward and nearly a whole step backwards. So I would like to suggest, as a principle, that the votes we take at this meeting take effect if they are ratified within a month and we start with a presumption that we got something. So we would not redebate something we simply 'forgot' to put on the list.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
We want to talk a little about fundamental principles. And I think that is the most important thing to address and I don't see them addressed in the Berlin document or in the revised document, which are more about procedures than process. Is the fundamental view of what this organization actually legal? At the moment, at least from the point of view of an Anglo-Saxon legal system, this organization is an unincorporated association of its members. Its members can be other organizations or can be individuals. But each and every one of these people is individually and jointly liable for the actions of the organization as a whole. I think it is extremely important that we have to address what is the legal status of the ccTLD constituency. People keep telling me, that the DNSO is not really part ICANN legally, well if it is not part of ICANN, what is it? Let's have some kind of legal basis of what we are.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
My name might be on the drafting. But there is no way that myself or anyone else on this ad hoc drafting committee is going to come up with 2 years of history as far as tracing the relationship between Berlin documents and current documents and so forth. It would probably be difficult for me, not having access to my office computers, to look up all of the names of all the people who have contributed to this document for almost 2 years. We have 2 years on this document. Before we start changing it too much, certainly on the fly, if we have renewed interest in the document, let's take our inputs from the meeting, put it back on the ccTLD drafting site where it still is, and let the people who made the original contributions make further contributions. I don't feel it is fair to all of those people who worked on that document for so long to quickly chop it up over the course of an hour. Secondly, Nigel has some interesting points here, and what is the legal basis for it? We are talking about the bylaws document and we want to strike out the word DNSO because maybe we are not the DNSO. Nevertheless, we are asked to pay 1.5 million dollars as a contribution to some organization that gives us nothing. I am not too sure about liability. I do not sit here in fear of being sued for something. I don't see we are doing anything we can be sued for. I agree with Nigel and maybe Louis Touton could address this a little more to see what our legal status is.
Pilar Luque (.es)
I want to make a comment on relation to the point Nigel made. I would like to ask if you could please refrain to always make references to Anglo-Saxon legal system. Out of the 245 registries represented here, it would be just a minority of us based on an Anglo-Saxon legal system.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
You are wrong because we are dealing with the Californian law. We are dealing with a California corporation which is based on Anglo-Saxon English common law. We, our registry, do not operate under Anglo-Saxon law. We operate under Norman law. But, California law is based under English common law and if you are in a court in California, it's English law you would argue in, as a fundamental basis.
Fay Howard
We have some volunteers. We are going to find a slot in which they can do that. Anymore comments? We have the administrative committee function. Would you like me to briefly go through them?
Reviewing applications for membership in the ccTLD constituency. You are either in or either out.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
What is membership, is there a membership by an application? Who defines membership?
Fay Howard
If the definition of membership is accurate and agreed, there is no need to review them.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
There are 2 possibilities. Is the ccTLD constituency a membership organization where there is a membership? Where a ccTLD says 'yes I'm a member of' or are you automatically a member? If so, do we need to review it?
Fay Howard
I suggest people have a look through.
Bill Semich (.nu)
I've been thinking about what Peter de Blanc said. Maybe this is not the time to take action on these bylaws. If there are people who has given it the thought and there are people who are not here who put the work into the document that is online. Perhaps we should put this back on the working group website and call for additional participation. We do have the existing Berlin principles, there is no pressure on us as there might be for some of the other actions we have to take and we have limited resources available to work on those other activities during this period.
Fay Howard
The problem is that, it has been raised already, we have people here that come a long way and that some people are prepared to do the work now because when they go back to their day jobs, they just don't find the time to deal with this. I don't think anybody is suggesting we make a final document here but all the comment that is being made so far and more comments by going through detail could be formally submitted or outlined, or bullet points made to go into the document. I think we do have to use the time we have together to do this because I know a lot of people with the best will in the world, when they get back to their desk, other matters overtake. I think we did have consensus to do a little bit of work, even if it's just matter of input in bullet points. We have to use the opportunity of having so many people in the room, we have had volunteers and we did do a straw poll.
Coffee Break.
* 31 December 2000: RFP on website (3 yrs and extendable)
Staff
There are 3 official staffs: Byung Kyu Kim, executive director, Abhisak Chulya, deputy executive director, and Seung Yeon Yoo, administrative assistant. Also, one volunteer staff from IAK, Jung Hye Choi. We welcome any volunteers wanting to help the ccTLD secretariat.
Work plan
The work plan for the permanent ccTLD secretariat is almost the same as the interim ccTLD secretariat.
Budget Plan FY 2001-2002
Basic/Minimal Expenses: $87,000/yr
These should be contributed by ccTLD members:
Including Optional Outreach Activities: $120,000/yr
All cases are not included cost of meeting rooms.
As we showed you last year, the minimal expenses are $87,000 per year. (We hope) This should be contributed by the ccTLD members. The items are as follows:
If you include the optional outreach activities, the budget will be increased to $120,000 per year. But this is not from the ccTLD members, we will get this budget from outside. This budget structure does not include the cost of the venues. We always managed to find sponsors for the venues. There are things to be completed soon. 1) we need to organize and find supervising our secretariat works. We are suggesting 5 over seeing boards from each geographical region 2) we need to fix the minimal operation period. As stated in the RFP, we requested a 3 years term for a stable operation. 3) The basic funding should be supported by the ccTLD members, not from corporations, because we are a non-profit organization. 4) The scope of the permanent secretariat is the same as the interim secretariat. We are encouraging each regional outreach activites. 5) The interim secretariat should take care of all financial matters until it's 3 May, because the permanent secretariat started on the 4 May. 6) The executive director should have the authority for the domain name http://www.wwtld.org/ to operate web and mail servers. These are things to be accomplished by end of this month.
Fay Howard
Haven't you gotten the authority for http://www.wwtld.org/ yet? But it is happening, right?
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I would like to begin by congratulating BK Kim on the appointment of his group to this position. Speaking as a member of the AdCom, they put together an excellent proposal. I want to thank them for undertaking the work. I know BK Kim and the Korean team are very hard working and always a significant contributor to the AP region. I want to finish by saying how important it is that we support the executive secretariat of the organization. I would like to move a motion receiving the first report of the new executive secretariat.
Fay Howard
Do we have anyone to second that motion?
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I second that motion
Fay Howard
Do we accept that report? We have that carried, thank you.
Morton Taragin (.il)
One point on the work list that I have a question, there was a mention of an over sight committee to see what the body is doing, I suggest that does not need to be complicated. The AdCom can do that without setting up a new group.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
I would like to thank BK Kim and his crew for the excellent presentation and also for the excellent arrangements here. We have a wonderful meeting room, we have briefing documents handed to us when we walk in the door, we know what's going on and we don't have to worry about the notes we left home. That is a very important function for the secretariat. On the budget part, I would like to acknowledge the initial contribution of $10,000 by Kilnam Chon to the work of the secretariat, which would probably carry it for the first month. I want to reaffirm the contribution of $1,000 from .vi and I invite anyone else as a ccTLD manager who prepared to make some commitment to please do so now to get the ball rolling. Thank you.
Fay Howard
It is an excellent suggestion.
Sue Leader (.nz)
The society has watched the progress of this constituency for sometime now and we have been concerned about stability and not moving forward. We are very pleased now that we have clear basis to move forward and on that basis we are making our first ever contributions to the ccTLDs, New Zealand $13,000 which with the exchange rate becomes US$5,000.
Fay Howard
Well done. Anybody else who could commit something?
Per Koelle (.dk)
We have committed ourselves to $3,000 as a starting point.
Morton Taragin (.il)
I will make a contribution. We are in the middle of finalizing it in our board so I cannot give a specific amount.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
We certainly will contribute as we have done in the past. I think it would be helpful if some sort of guideline could be given to us. In the past, for instance, we sort of linked this to the ICANN contributions. I don't know if that makes sense or not, but a guideline would be useful.
Fay Howard
Do you mean sort of fee bands?
BK Kim (cochair)
I have sent e-mail to the ccTLD discuss list about the fee band but will send again.
Saleem M. Al-Balooshi (.ae)
We will support and will contribute.
Chris Disspain (.au)
Australia is very happy to contribute. We just have to work out our budgets and how much we can contribute. It would very helpful to us to have some guidelines from the secretariat as to suggested contributions
Kira Litvina (.ru)
I made this comment when we had the interim secretariat. I just want to let everyone know the situation we have. We unfortunately cannot contribute to the organization, which is not a legal entity, and we do not have a contract with it or unless it is the association. I already wrote this on list so I would be happy to contribute to the ccTLD secretariat as a translation service. We are trying to do this by translating the best practices document and delegation/redelegation issues.
Alf Hansen (.no)
I just want to mention that Norway would certainly contribute but don't know the exact numbers.
BK Kim
For the interim secretariat, 3 countries donated more than $5,000, 14 countries donated between $1,000 to $5,000, and 21 countries donated less than $1,000. The current budget scheme is similar as the interim secretariat but will always welcome if you want to pay more.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
We need to resolve how we are going to manage the contract with BK to do the work and then how it is going to be supervised. There are 2 suggestions:
1) The AdCom can do this as part of its job
2) We need a new organization
I just would like some discussion because the decision of the previous AdCom meeting was that we would include in the bylaws a separate schedule relating to how we are going to manage the secretariat. Speaking to that, if there is a view that the AdCom is a very light weight body that makes no decisions then maybe inappropriate for the AdCom to sign contracts and do the supervisory work necessary to check the performance of the secretariat. On the other hand, it may be easier to beef up the powers of the AdCom in that area to that than to set up another entire body. I think we need some directions from the meeting as to which of the choices that people are happiest. And to include it in the bylaws, post it up and get consensus.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
There is something that caught my attention in the report. It said there had been 'informal vote on best practices document', why is it called an 'informal' vote and if it is, what is the value of the best practices document today?
Fay Howard
We'll go through the ccTLD stuff and that will be the first item in the best practices item
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I'm speaking now as a new AdCom member. If the AdCom is going to be "beefed up" and is going to be involved in supervising all contractual obligations regarding money and services, then there is no way that it cannot be constituted as a formally constituted legal organization. That has to be dealt with.
Fay Howard
Any more comments on the idea of AdCom supervising the work of ccTLD secretariat vs. there being a separate oversight committee?
Morton Taragin (.il)
I think we don't want to be too broken down into groups. I think the AdCom is representative of the ccTLD community. If it turns out that there is certain technical things or skills lacking, there is no reason that AdCom, power of invested in it, with consensus, can't delegate some group to work. I don't think a separate full organization is needed
Fay Howard
You are advocating that AdCom has a little bit more power and that AdCom deals with it.
Morton Taragin (.il)
The AdCom is the representative of the ccTLDs.
Per Koelle (.dk)
I want AdCom to supervise ccTLD because all these ICANN stuff is ending up in so many committees.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
I also want AdCom to supervise and also agree with Nigel.
If AdCom makes a contract with some organization with a budget of $87,000 but doesn't have the money, that is coming totally liable to the people doing that. We should fix something.
Fay Howard
In the defense of the AdCom, we reckoned that the money should be sorted out.
Chris Disspain (.au)
2 basic principles
1) It would be nonsense anyone other than AdCom to manage
2) Perhaps you can't have a contract until you have a legal entity. That needs to be handled as swiftly as possible.
Willie Black (.uk)
Who takes the financial risk, the AdCom or the organizations that have employed the staffs? (If the money doesn't come up to $87,000, which I'm sure isn't going to happen)
Fay Howard
Maybe BK can explain that. Was that an offer from the .uk registry on funding?
BK Kim
I am an employee of the KRNIC and Seung- Yeon Yoo and Abhisak are employed by the ccTLD secretariat.
Currently we proposed the ccTLD secretariat to be AP Joint Secretariat.
Fay Howard
So is AP providing a legal umbrella present for employment and contract?
BK Kim
Yes
Fay Howard
Does that help?
Willie Black (.uk)
They are taking the legal risk if no money went to the secretariat, which is not going to happen I'm sure. They will continue to pay the salaries according to the employment contract.
Who has got the contract of employment? Is there a legal entity that has employed the people? Who pays the salary?
BK Kim
We are thinking KRNIC or IAK.
Willie Black (.uk)
Then KRNIC or IAK is taking the legal risk. It's a small point. And, .uk will consider paying something.
Chris Disspain (.au)
The secretariat is being outsourced and that there is a legal organization in Korea that is providing services for a fee to the ccTLD, and the staff that are employed by KRNIC.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
If that is the case, that answers Willie's question, but it doesn't answer my question which is who is the other party to that contract.
Willie Black (.uk)
I disagree with what was said before, there isn't a contract for services. Nobody has left the services. We all agreed to make donations, which means somebody takes the risk. The permanent secretariat offered to do services and we offered to support. The risk is with the people that are employing the staff. It is fairly clear that there are no contracts for services between them and anybody else.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
One comment on BK asking for a 3 year term, I do not feel that is realistic because there is not $250,000 available to guarantee the payment of the 3 year term, whether or not there is a legal contract available. We certainly appreciate KRNIC or whoever is writing the paychecks, I feel that we should, in our non-contract, stay with 1 year, because it is kind of a funded as you go. It reduces the risk of the contracting organization to at least $85,000, of which we already have about $25,000 on the table.
Fay Howard
Any comments?
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
You cannot commit to a 3 year term unless you have the guaranteed funding for it.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
Several people suggested 1 year term. I agree with Peter. When we were running interim secretariat between AFNIC and THNIC, it was simply AFNIC providing, paying for services and we had a guarantee on our fund. I understand that the situation is going to be similar with Korea. It is safe to do it for 1 year and no more.
Bill Semich (.nu)
I would propose that we support the 3 year term as it was originally was in RFP. I don't think funding needs to be a problem, the US government makes 10 year contracts and they run on annual funding. You can merely put on agreement that it is contingent upon the availability of funds. So funding is not an issue. The issue is giving the secretariat the certainty that they are going to be able to perform this role longer than a year and giving them the kind of commitment they need to hire staff. The RFP was for 3 years and I think they responded in good faith.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I think 2 years, subject to funding being available, is the sort of time that is going to take an organization like this up and running. 2 years is the same term we have given to other parts of our rules to name councils, AdCom, and etc.
Kilnam Chon (.kr)
1 year is not good
a) ccTLD is giving a blessing to this ccTLD SEC and is not making any legal commitments. So it is a blessing that their best effort in good faith, commitment is with BK or the AP Joint secretariat.
b) BK has to employ those 2 persons and it is encouraging for employers to work long time. If the term is only 1 year, BK has to tell the employees that he can only guarantee one year and that is not encouraging for the employees to work for a long time. He will make contracts with those 2 persons and can guarantee at least 2 years if they do a good job. The only thing the ccTLD Constituency is giving blessing in good faith. We have to support and help BK to manage easier 2-3 years commitment
I strongly recommend ccTLD to give blessing to work on that 2 or 3 years commitment.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
Because of Kilnam's indisputable theory and passion, I will make my position 2 years.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
If there is no commitment by next year, we have to close down.
Look for funding first and then hire people.
Morton Taragin (.il)
Are we a legal entity that we can make a contract for more than one year?
Given we can do that, are we prepared to leave the permanent secretariat in for 2 or 3 period? I think that, we should feel comfortable doing. What we could decide here and now is the sense of the ccTLD community that we shall continue with the present organization. If we don't have the money, we won't have anyone. I think the sense is that we will continue with the present secretariat with the best of our ability and not change.
Fay Howard
I am hearing good comments. Some compromise.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
I think it is misleading to focus so much on the money because what we have here is good faith understanding that the secretariat is going to do the work we expect them to do and we on our part will make a good faith to come up with donations. I think the question is a different one. When do we plan to issue our next RFP? That is what they need to know because then we would be able to change the secretariat even if they do a perfect job. We won't have to claim that they are not doing their job to change it, just because it is the right time to re-open this for proposals.
Fay Howard
I think I am hearing some consensus in the room. How often do we do a recall for proposals? I think maybe we should be able to say on the basis that the work is outsourced and the funding will have to be found. We give them a 2-year commitment before we even think about a recall, but that is subjected to funding.
"2 years term subject to funding after which ccTLD may take an option to review RFP and make a fresh call for proposals"
The consensus of this meeting we can take back to the ccTLD constituency is that.
Sue Leader (.nz)
I have a question regarding the mailing lists. What is the difference between ccTLD discuss list and ccTLD contact list?
BK Kim
I got an e-mail saying that ccTLD contact list should only be used for emergencies.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
The ccTLD contact list is used only for voting and ccTLD discuss list should be used for the rest.
Sue Leader (.nz)
Who is able to be on ccTLD discuss list?
Abhisak Chulya
Anyone may join the 'discuss' list. If you want to join, just send an e-mail to me. Registries are allowed to join. It's not a restricted list.
Fay Howard
Could we have the secretariat here to explain why this document is here and what is different from the last one.
Abhisak Chulya
As we all know, we did some voting on the best practice online over the ccTLD discuss list and the results came out to 24 in favor, 9 against it, 1 abstained.
Many people voted no. (9 registries voted no) What we want to have is a good consensus on this best practice document, so the AdCom decided to put the best practice document here for amendment. What happened in Melbourne is that we made this document stable and put it for voting online, that's a normal procedure. Now we have a lot of people who did not attend the last meeting in Melbourne. So what we want to do is to put it up for amendment and make changes if desired. One of the major important points we have to talk about is that the ccTLD manager has to be in the local territory and cannot be outside.
Fay Howard
I want to spend a little bit of time why people support it or don't. Because what we have here is a document that has been through the rounds for a while and obviously there has been a vote and there isn't much consensus on it. We need to hammer this out.
Bill Semich (.nu)
I have 2 particular issues. Item 3.1, second to the last paragraph.
In the absence of pre-existing arrangements with the Local Internet Community and consistent with the requirement to best serve the interests of the Local Internet Community, the administrative contact should be resident in the territory of the ccTLD or, if the Manager is a corporation, the ccTLD Manager should be incorporated there.
To be consistent with RFC 1591, it is my hope and desire that this language should be changed, 'administrative contact should be resident in the territory of the ccTLD'. That is exactly as it is stated in the RFC 1591 and ICP1 and I would gladly support that. But anything beyond that gets too involved in this group managing the kind of structure current ccTLDs and ccTLD managers are working on. I will leave this one on the table now and bring up the second one after this is discussed.
Sue Leader (.nz)
May I speak to that as the latter of the redrafting group in LA, there were really quite different opinions. Some say you absolutely must at all times be resident in the territory, and the other one saying no, the 1591 says only the admin contact. And trying to bring those two positions together, the paragraph got crafted in very careful way. In the absence of pre-existing arrangements, if you are already doing it, and you are not incorporated in the territory or resident but your admin contact is, that would be fine. That is covered by this. People who are working more to the GAC principles, are then saying the ideal is for the entire organization to be in the territory. This is actually a compromise paragraph, trying to meet both sets of conditions people might have and not say you have to this or you have to do that. The key one in there is 'pre-existing arrangements' and it is again the same idea as the ICANN contracts of having a legacy agreement, in other words your pre existing arrangements.
Bill Semich (.nu)
Many of these pre existing arrangements are not with the local internet community. They are pre existing arrangements, they are grandfathered arrangements. The minute you say pre-existing arrangements with the local internet community, you open up these can of worms where some local internet group can say "wait a minute you are not here, we are going to call for redelegation, you don't have an arrangement with us." I am going to suggest that we stick with the current policies under which we are currently working and not try and add to or expand those which are ICP 1 and RFC 1591. I see no problem in adding other issues in here that RFC 1591 doesn't address but this particular paragraph is specifically addressed and there are entities who have established business, organizations, private companies based on the language of RFC1591 reading it very carefully. And this changes that.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
The comment I have to make is a technical one, a comment I recall making two ICANN meetings ago in L.A. It specifically relates to those ccTLD registries which are part of the European single market. Others can close their ears. But this wording is actually illegal and anti competitive under European law. The bit which says 'the ccTLD manager should be incorporated there'. Now we know in practice, the existing ccTLD managers for the European member states are generally speaking, incorporated in European member states which they serve. But under European single market law and under European competition law, every incorporated entity in one member state has the right to trade and market it's services in the whole of the 12 or 15 or how many we are going to have. Just like a Delaware corporation can market it's services in New York and vice versa. I think this has to be taken out.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I believe what Sue said in the absence of pre-existing arrangement with the local internet is an important statement. What we have in the RFC is to be the trustee for the nation and it is the translation of trustee of the nation, once the instant internet, IANA started to speak about countries, and started to speak politics and it is a very important issue.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
I want to make a brief comment on what Nigel said. You are right about what you said, if we were to be an European member state and if the ccTLD constituency would ask a member of the European union to be incorporated in this country. But that's not true. This is just a best practice and you just ask for something to do and it is no problem with European law.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I agree with Elisabeth and others. I just really want to pick up on Bill's point, that there are people currently doing other things and I wonder how relevant that is to what we are trying to achieve. We are not actually here to pass judgements on what other people are doing, say that we agree or we don't or we should be preserving what people are doing or not. What we are saying is that this is what we assembled and think are the best practices of the management of the ccTLDs. And if there is a consequence of that decision for people doing other things, that may be a problem for them. But I'm not sure we need to respond to Bill's suggestion. If there is a ccTLD that is operating in a way that it would be inconsistent with this, we are not obliged to draft something which covers what they do. What we have to try and do, is to get the best practices we think is best for running the ccTLDs. Maybe some people may not agree with our views collectively about the best practices document. We need to be clear about whether we are trying to achieve unanimity (everybody agrees) or whether just the majority agrees on the best practices.
Bill Semich (.nu)
Let me make my point in another way. It's true there are many of us here who attended many of these meetings, worked very hard on this best practices document, in fact I probably worked as hard as anyone. I strongly support. 99% support. The ccTLD that I represent has no law of incorporation. It is impossible for .nu domain to be incorporated in Niue because it has no law of incorporation. And there are many countries that have no law of incorporation. If we want to have a corporate entity, take advantage of the benefits of having a private company, we have to incorporate somewhere else. Many other ccTLDs and other countries like Niue face the same problem. We are not just talking about grandfathering for some special interest, like a private company doing business outside of the country, but we are talking about coming up with the best practices policy which is broad enough to cover the diversity of possible organizational structures throughout the world.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
It's a very good point, .gg, one of the three islands, has no law of incorporation. So I accept that. Sach is a part of .gg. We wanted to move and setup in Sach and couldn't be corporated there. I would be happy if we change that 'should also be resident there' because there is a concept of residence for corporations.
Sue Leader (.nz)
I see that there are legal difficulties but I want to go back to the idea that this is a model document. This is what we are aiming for as a group. If you have local conditions that are different and you are going to attach it to a contract, you modify it and make the changes as necessary. Some of the ideas are in the sister document, the guidelines. I agree with Peter. What we are trying to do as a group say this is where we are going so we don't have the GAC principles dropped on us. You can, have to if you are going to enter a contract, make local changes you need within the matter of world structure.
Morton Taragin (.il)
I am forced to disagree with Sue. You have to understand how this document might be used in the future. It can be used as a legal rod against someone. Someone could go to court and say, 'Yes, you might have different circumstances here, but there is a group in the world, the ccTLDs doing something, and this is their best practice and you're not doing it.' We have to be very careful in putting something that could be used against someone who is conducting a business in a proper manner. Someone else can come along and say 'alright, maybe an individual is better' and they'll use this and we shouldn't be in a position where we are being used by somebody else just because we wrote something.
Fay Howard
What are the other problems?
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
Why don't we have the secretariat to read the 2 letter codes of those who objected to the document and we could ask those in the room if there is anything we could do to the document to eliminate their objections.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I have a technical objection to this. I didn't sign up for this document for fairly technical reasons. I think this is parading people up and forcing by the will of the majority to people to change their minds. I sent my vote in and I stated that it was a secret ballot. Despite my objections and without any reference back to me, that vote was published. I don't like that attitude, and I'm sorry, Peter.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
We can do this more diplomatically. In looking for consensus, if there is anybody who cannot sign up to the document or voted against the document, who would recommend the change in the document that would allow them to agree to sign up for the document, let them come forward. Our objective is to get consensus on the document, so we could go to our government and say "These are our best practices and these are the world wide best practices and why not agree with them."
Fay Howard
I agree with Peter. What are people's objections and how can we make it better?
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
It is important to have a document like this. There is only one best practices document published and that is WIPO's best practices document. That would be only the standard against in which we would be measured. We did approve something in Melbourne and went through an email vote, and we decided to open the opportunity for people to propose amendments. With no intention of parading anyone here, I would ask for people to propose amendments. I think Bill has one, and if other people have other amendments, they should speak up and we should discuss them.
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
I voted against this for several reasons.
1) Why did we stray away from the admin contact, needing to be located in the country vs. what is now in the document, as the manager needs to be located in the country. So if there is any color on why that change was made, that might help us understand. I would still object to it but it would help me understand.
2) 3.4.3.1- Just a related issue that the ccTLD manager should operate under law of the country that relates to the corporation issue or the location issue, but if it's different, maybe some explanation on that.
3) 3.4.3.2- The law under which the contract between the registry and the registrant operates will be stated in that contract and, unless otherwise agreed, will be the law of the country or territorial authority in 3.4.3.1.
It is problematic in number of situations. In the case of .tv, the contract between registry and registrant is governed by the Delaware law. This is because 1) Delaware law is a more accepted body of law world wide, 2) law of Tuvalu is under developed, 3) the country law is not developed enough to adequately govern the rights between the registry and the registrant.
Sue Leader (.nz)
The redrafting group, I think probably context of this overall and maybe we would want to reconsider, were actually responding to the GAC document. We were feeling at the time that if we didn't at least meet them halfway or further, that we would find we would not be accepted at all. Particular one about the resident of the ccTLD manager as opposed to the admin contact, that was one that the GAC made clear that they would not change. Maybe we need to rethink that and say 'We don't care and enough time has passed, this is our document.' And that may apply to the other ones. My legal adviser tells me that at least in the most of the western laws, we could take out the line of 'manager of corporation. The ccTLD manager should be incorporated there' because the word resident actually applies to a business as well as to a person. I am trying to find the compromise that works.
Per Koelle (.dk)
Just to make things clear, Denmark doesn't want RFC 1591 or ICP1 noted anywhere on this document. In that case I will lose my business and it will go to my government. We tried to move away from RFC 1591, which is why we are here because of this document. So please don't put that in.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
1) There is one more best practice document, CENTR best practice document, adopted by CENTR and approved by most of the board of the CENTR members.
2) The registries work for the benefit and on behalf of the local internet community and that is one of the real important things. That is more or less what we want to say in the best practices. I'm not sure if a registry has to stay in a country to work in the country for the best interest of the local internet community. You just have to make sure that you work on behalf of them. A good word in here because from a legal point of view, I would not be sure how to define 'arrangement' with the local internet community.
Chris Disspain (.au)
I would like to comment on the one of the .tv point,
3.4.3.2 'The law under which the contract between the Registry and the Registrant operates will be stated in that contract and, unless otherwise agreed, will be the law of the country or territorial authority in 3.4.3.1.'
Given that your contract is entered into bio registrant, it is obviously otherwise agreed. So I don't think this is actually problem for you. Given that the registrant and you enter into a contract.
Joel Disini (.ph)
I would like to make a comment regarding first paragraph of 3.1.
'The primary duty of the ccTLD Manager is one of Public Service and to manage and operate the ccTLD Registry in the interest of and in consultation with the Local Internet Community, mindful of the interests of the Global Internet Community.
We would want language clarifying that 'consultation with the local internet community' does not mean 'seeking permission.' Any confusion regarding consultation and seeking permission might perhaps obligate some registries perform laborious and extensive procedures before implementing any policies regarding the registry.
Fay Howard
Have you had some experience of confusion between a document that says 'in consultation' and 'seeking permission'?
Joel Disini (.ph)
Yes, and it also seems to be reflected in this. I assume it is not a situation that is particular to .ph. There seems to be a trend now there is a greater involvement, which is all for the good. But it should be clarified that consultation does not constitutes seeking permission.
3.4 Financial matters 'ccTLD registries should not be limited as to business model.' Also interested in the language that 'also' does not limit the model in which the ccTLDs run. In terms of whether its stake holder is a model or a private corporation. Not just strictly financial but in how the policies are implemented.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I would like to make a comment on Anthony Bishop, which is actually the ICANN governing law. The ccTLD registry is operating on behalf of and for the local internet community. The main users are sitting in the country. These people speak languages, used to life in that country, and use the local law. In conflict to a situation they may one day have with a registry, they should have advantage to understanding the law under which they, as registrants, have contract with registry and they should understand what it is about.
Joel Disini (.ph)
It is easy for someone to claim that the registry is not consulting with the public. It's hard to prove that we are consulting them. People have said that we are making decisions which are only for the interests of the registry and what we had to do was do a survey. It's expensive and laborious to do a survey to prove that what you decide as a registry, ccTLD manager is what the public want. It's very clear that we have to separate 'consulting' from 'seeking permission'. We will consult and on the basis of our consultation, we will decide what we think is best. This can be misinterpreted, at least in my country it has been misinterpreted to mean I have to seek permission from the public. It's good to put it there to make it clear.
Fay Howard
Just clarification of the language.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
This is the price for having no government regulation. The trade off is you prove, as often as your community wishes you to, that you are acting in terms of the second clause, trustee for the delegated domain, with a duty to serve the community. If you cannot prove that you are meeting that need and serving that need, that may mean you have to consult and you may have to change your ways as a result of that consultation. The alternative is government regulation.
Bill Semich (.nu)
I made a comment particularly to Per's comment, I am not proposing that we mention or specifically call out RFC 1591 or ICP1. I am pointing out that many of us are organized around the language of RFC 1591, and looking to not have certain directions. In addition, I agree with Anthony Bishop on issues related to whether we even need section 3.4.3. I don't see any reasons for ccTLD constituency to be telling everyone to obey the laws. Any company that is in the business of registering a domain name is obeying the law of the country in which it is registering that business. It is not our job to the policemen for the local corporate law or the local financial law enforcement agencies of any country. Saying that ccTLD managers should operate under the law of country is obvious. If they were not, they would be out of business. This is unnecessary verbiage and will get a lot more support if you just get rid of this.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
This is what allows you to protect an organization like yours because the alternative is that the ccTLD managers should operate under the law of the country associated with the ccTLD. This is the deliberate strengthening of the right of a ccTLD manager to live in a different country from where the cc is associated and for the law of that country to govern, not the law associated with the cc in the terms of 3.4.3.1.
Bill Semich (.nu)
That is assuming that you've deleted the 4th paragraph of 3.1, where the ccTLD is to be incorporated in the locality of territory.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
It is subject to pre-existing arrangements and since it is only a 'should', it can be anywhere else. What 3.4.3 says, if you are somewhere else you can choose both the contracts with registrants governed by that other law and the registry manager can live by that other law. The alternative is the GAC principle which says it's the law of the cc which governs everything.
Bill Semich (.nu)
I am still concerned about 3.4.1 and the offending paragraph.
Emil Avancena (.ph)
My question is regarding listening local internet community. If you're a trustee of the community, how else can you act without consulting the media and without listening to the community? Or even taking efforts to follow what the community says? It is just putting that in perspective.
Stephano Trumpy (.it)
The ccTLDs has been conceived in the middle of the 1980s to serve the local internet communities. The adoption of 3166 introduced this problem of various more states and territories. We are preparing a document called best practice for we are trying to define the real goals of ccTLDs and how they should be managed. In the document that has been presented here, I see the possibilities of accommodating all the cases which are de facto running on another base, which was not the initial goal of the cc. To my opinion, this document is good and is accommodating the present situation of all those who are not exactly aligned with this concept. Perhaps, in the future there will be only the need for the present ccTLDs which are running outside the country for business. Let's say to make an effort to encounter more than they are doing right now, the local internet community's expectations. It's hard to find the unanimity on this document and why don't we vote and find out how much we agree on this principle. The people who don't agree have nothing to fear now because they have all the possibilities to be accommodated with this. Vote for the document as it is
Fay Howard
We have already done that, the vote wasn't very conclusive.
Stephano Trumpy (.it)
You wanted to verify who weren't voting electronically. The ones presented here is the general opinion
Sue Leader (.nz)
For the benefit of the Philippine's people have spoken, that consultation sentence originally had this much words saying how you consulted, how you worked out who they were. Many of the ccTLDs felt that was too restrictive. That language which might help you is in the sister document, the guidelines for implementation. That could give you some guidelines. And bearing in mind, in the definitions of local internet community, it says clearly this will vary from country to country. That might help. I would like to move under section 3.1, status and responsibilities, 4th paragraph, the words after 'resident in the territory of the ccTLD', put a full stop and delete 'or if the manager is a corporation'. I suggest that on the basis of that meets the needs of dealing with the GAC concerns about being resident but it is still clear, it strengthens existing arrangements and in the absence of pre-existing arrangements, this is how you will go in the future. But it deals with the fact that some countries don't have incorporation law.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
This is going to be too far because even people who were questioning before accepted the fact the admin contact had to be resident. So with this, that could not be true, because of preexisting arrangements. It goes beyond what has been asked.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
There is still the statement 'ccTLD manager should be resident in the territory of the ccTLD'. That means ccTLD, whether it's an admin or an organization, should be resident there. If it is an organization and if there is an incorporation law in the country, it should be incorporated there. That's actually what is base of that statement.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
What we are trying to do is to apply Laymen's knowledge to corporate law. If you are a ccTLD manager, your customers, who will be the local internet community by and large in most ccTLDs, should be able to find you and get a hold of you. They should have an expectation that they can be treated under something they are familiar with. That is a goal we can agree with. But when you try and say it must be incorporated, or so on, you start falling into traps because you are being prescriptive and you are falling into exceptions. You should have a place of establishment, so that the ccTLD manager should be established in the territory of the ccTLD.
Willie Black (.uk)
I want to take it back to generality. I was uncomfortable with the vote and think the vote got a low turnout because the people are scared. We are striving to get the wording right, but I hear us all really agreeing on the feel we should be giving to this. We are all scared because we are worried of 1) this being incorporated into our contract with ICANN, and 2) because of that contract's termination conditions are really delegation and redelegation. Someone might come along and remove the contract between ICANN and give it to somebody else because you are failing to do what the paragraph states. We don't quite know where this will affect us contractually and that means I'm not going to agree to this, anything other than in principle. I'm fundamentally worried about the status of the document and how it relates to the contractual situation.
Chris Disspain (.au)
It is unfair to suggest, just because there perceived to be a low turn out in the vote, the vote is not valid. If people were that scared, they would have all voted no. However, majority of them voted yes.
Willie Black (.uk)
I didn't vote because I wasn't going to say yes.
Chris Disspain (.au)
This is the only substantive point that has come up with this document, section 3.1.4. I would not like to see the whole document being thrown out simply because of this point. We can just take out the offending piece and proceed with the best practices document.
Fay Howard
A lot of people actually agreed with that point, when it was drafted (from memory). People who are opposed can suggest an alternative wording.
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
Just with regards to specific language up there, the basic point still remains and that is whether that language says ccTLD manager should say admin contact, which is the current requirement.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
If it says ccTLD manager, what is the ccTLD manager? ICANN is now using phrase 'sponsoring organization' and I don't know what that means.
Fay Howard
Sum up these comments, put to the list and people who want to revise wording do so and get the drafting committee or the redrafting committee to look again. The AdCom can look at it the next meeting.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
This is the way out. It distressed to take these documents where we worked so hard and have them consigned to the list. If we let this go, good ideas will be allured and then quietly strangled. We need this document for 2 reasons: 1) we need a sword to put into the hand of the board, the board has to know that this is the collective strength of the ccTLDs. And they have to use it anyway they see fit. They will be able to oppose the GAC principles. We have given them the sword. 2) It is also the shield that we need to protect ourselves against the attack that we are useless and disorganized and cannot achieve a consensus position. So, I would like to finish this discussion with an actual document we can agree. It's only 9 votes that are holding up from this. I suggest 2 things: 1) put the amendment that Bill proposed: put 'administrative contact' be substituted for ccTLD manager. If we can get that through, this document has some strength. 2) If we cannot do that, remove the paragraph completely. This is only a model and anyone who wants it can put it back on its own contract. What we should be trying to do is get a document we can all agree on and if there are things we cannot agree on, can take them out, and those of us who want them, can put them on our own personal contracts. We must try and preserve 99% of the document we all agree on. I will move Bill's amendments, the words 'ccTLD manager' be substituted by the words 'administrative contact'.
Chris Disspain (.au)
I second that.
Fay Howard
It's 3.1, paragraph 4.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
The 'incorporation' business on the next line, delete it all after the comma. (was the proposed amendment by Sue)
Willie Black (.uk)
The administrative contact should be not mentioned at all. I would like to push IANA to get rid of the concept. It's an old internet terminology and has no meaning in the sensible contract law. I would rather see the whole paragraph gone. I don't really care about people not being resident.
Fay Howard
So, you want to take the whole paragraph out?
Willie Black (.uk)
Yes
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
To make this easy, take a vote for all three.
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
I'm confused about the word 'resident'. If the administrative contact is an organization, not an individual, I do think the concept of that organization being organized or incorporated in the territory as an alternative, be appropriate or established. If we are trying to get away and just tying ourselves to a corporation and want to recognize other entities, we can say 'should be resident, or established, or organized in the territory'
Chris Disspain (.au)
May I suggest that we take Peter's 2nd suggestion, take the paragraph out and just vote on the document.
Fay Howard
Proposals are
1) different wording
2) take out whole paragraph
3) take each amendment in order
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
IANA has been changing and adding various names in the IANA database. We could ask Louis for his opinion about this; the administrative contact, the ccTLD manager, supporting organization, what it is and how we deal with that.
Fay Howard
What is the relevance to our voting here?
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
We are trying to fix the wording here and we are trying to fix this document. We have been already voting on this document. We have been moving forward and backward between the concept of administrative contact and ccTLD manager. I feel uncomfortable to change it. Because we are referring to IANA documents and we have a chance to have in the audience somebody who is in charge of IANA aspect, we could have clarification what does it admin contact, sponsoring organization, and then to understand better what we are talking about.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
Let's hear Louis' opinion
Louis Touton (ICANN)
I am not really sure what the confusion is. From IANA's point of view, it lists 3 things for each ccTLD; sponsoring organization, administrative contact, and technical contact. They are not precisely defined in the current regime. Moving forward to something contractual, we would expect that they would be better defined. I am also aware that the Internet Architecture Board is working on a paper about the meanings of the terms administrative contact and technical contact.
Fay Howard
In IANA/ICANN, the term ccTLD manager doesn't exist?
Louis Touton (ICANN)
In RCF 1591 and ICP1, the manager is understood as a combination of the technical and administrative contact.
Fay Howard
With that clarification in mind, any changes on the amendments? The managers with ribbons should be the only ones who can vote.
Motion #1: Replace the word "ccTLD manager" out with the word "administrative contact"
In the absence of pre-existing arrangements with the Local Internet Community and consistent with the requirement to best serve the interests of the Local Internet Community, the Administrative Contact should be resident in the territory of the ccTLD or, if the Manager is a corporation, the ccTLD Manager should be incorporated there.
(Assuming the definition of administrative contact will be given)
In favor: 14
Opposed: 2
Abstained: 12
Fay Howard
There is conclusive evidence to change it.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
With the theory that you ruled in favor, that has carried on the basis of the vote today, and refer it to the floor, I would like to now move on to the second amendment.
Fay Howard
Your amendment carried
Motion #2: Take out (or, if the Manager is a corporation, the ccTLD Manager should be incorporated there.)
In the absence of pre-existing arrangements with the Local Internet Community and consistent with the requirement to best serve the interests of the Local Internet Community, the Administrative Contact should be resident in the territory of the ccTLD.
In favor: 11
Opposed: 4
Abstained: 15
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I heard a proposal that additional wording be added and I think you should give somebody to second that motion.
Fay Howard
Fair enough.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)- I see Nigel is carrying two votes for 2 ccTLDs. There are other people in the room who also represent more than one ccTLD. Do we have a policy, if so what it is and then let's have it all being the same.
Fay Howard
Nigel has two votes because somebody gave it to him. It has nothing to do with having 2 ccTLDs.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
What's the clarification?
Fay Howard
Every ccTLD manager is getting 1 vote and it should be discussed in the bylaws. There is definitely no substantial support for that second vote. We have more abstained and opposed votes than yes votes. We can only put the vote to the list for ratification, it's not that revealing.
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
Add 'or established' after the word 'resident' and delete last sentence. So in my mind, this means that the administrative contact can be either be resident or incorporated or another form of legal entity legally established in that territory.
Fay Howard
Just to clarify, a corporate body is usually a resident so it doesn't make sense.
Bill Semich (.nu)
Was unclear what the 2nd vote was.
Fay Howard
We should do all of the voting again because it is unclear for some people.
Bill Semich (.nu)
I would not vote for language, 'if the manager is a corporation, the ccTLD manager should be incorporated there'. If you separate the 2 items (substituting admin contact for ccTLD manager and striking out 'or, if the Manager is a corporation, the ccTLD Manager should be incorporated there'), many people who have this concern cannot vote on it. How are you supposing to solve this problem?
Chris Disspain (.au)
He has a valid point. If Bill votes in favor for the word 'ccTLD manager' being changed but by the second vote, the last part of the sentence gets left in, he is in a position where he has voted in favor of one resolution and hasn't gotten an opportunity to have what he wants. Bill wants both voted on (the 2 motions together).
Fay Howard
Some people wanted to vote for this bit by bit.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
First, vote on amendments to what is proposed and then vote for the text as amended.
Fay Howard
We'll vote on this, the third bit. Just consider adding 'or established'
Motion #3: Add the words 'or established' after the word resident
In the absence of pre-existing arrangements with the Local Internet Community and consistent with the requirement to best serve the interests of the Local Internet Community, the Administrative Contact should be resident or established in the territory of the ccTLD.
In favor: 15
Opposed: 1
Abstained: 11
That amendment is carried.
I would like to return to the whole phrase.
Kira Litvina (.ru)
There are about 30 of us here voting, we should gather all the suggestions here and make the voting on the list.
Fay Howard
This was made clear that the votes here do not commit the whole ccTLD constituency, we take the recommendations back to the list.
Kira Litvina (.ru)
But it's probably better to make the voting on the list altogether.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
We all understand that how important language is and the meaning 'Established' means that "if the administrative contact is not a physical person, you cannot speak of residency". I would like the definition to be added explicitly to this text.
Fay Howard
We need a definition of 'established' in the definition section, 'established' meaning what we just said it was.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
This could be read as a deliberate weakening of what is stated in RFC 1591 and ICP1 because today what is said is that the admin contact should be resident in the territory of the ccTLD and here we are adding this condition at the beginning that says, 'in the absence of'. Now there is an escape clause to what is stated. Do we want to do that? That is the way it will be interpreted.
Fay Howard
People who proposed the amendment should speak to this.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I'm not voting in favor this, I just wanted to achieve consensus, trying to see if the major objections that was given for the reason why 9 people voted against this could be resolved. In terms of Patricio's specific point, we haven't touched the original paragraph which says 'in absence of pre-existing arrangements', so that condition has always been there that RFC 1591 to my mind is weakened.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
What we have arrived at, with the exception of first 2 or 3 words, which I won't speak to, plenty of other people are speaking to that, this is pure RFC 1591 motherhood and apple pie.
Fay Howard
We will now vote for the revised paragraph.
Willie Black (.uk)
You are saying we are voting it to be in or be taken out.
Fay Howard
We are voting on the paragraph as amended.
Willie Black (.uk)
A vote on striking out the whole paragraph is coming next?
Fay Howard
Vote for the new paragraph, old paragraph, or the whole thing out.
We will first vote for the new paragraph or old paragraph, then the paragraph in or out.
We will have to define administrative contact.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
We will define administrative contact after we vote?
Fay Howard
The administrative contact is already defined in the IANA database.
Motion #4: Vote on the New Wording vs. the Old Wording
New Wording
In the absence of pre-existing arrangements with the Local Internet Community and consistent with the requirement to best serve the interests of the Local Internet Community, the Administrative Contact should be resident or established in the territory of the ccTLD.
Old Wording
In the absence of pre-existing arrangements with the Local Internet Community and consistent with the requirement to best serve the interests of the Local Internet Community, the ccTLD Manager should be resident in the territory of the ccTLD or, if the Manager is a corporation, the ccTLD Manager should be incorporated there.
New wording: 13
Old wording: 3
Abstention: 11
The new wording is carried.
As suggested, we will have another vote.
Motion #5: Vote on the New Wording vs. Deleting the Whole Paragraph
New Wording: 11
Deleting the Whole Paragraph: 8
Abstention: 8
The paragraph remains, in an amended form.
Who would now vote yes on the best practices document who previously voted no?
Some of the 9 votes have been removed.
Fay Howard
The DNSO has requested a contribution for the DNSO funds of $15000.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
Let me just recall the old situation. When ICANN was set up in 2 years ago, with the design of the current support organization, it is said in ICANN bylaws each SO shall be able to fund itself and it also happened to DNSO. It is different from other SO, because DNSO was set up from scratch and it was much difficult for this SO to set up itself and start to work. Since the very beginning, the ccTLD was requested by DNSO to fund DNSO, I recall you were on the board on the Names Council first year and the contribution was $5000, the second year was $13000, and third year is $15000.
Fay Howard
Is this a call to raise money?
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I would say yes. The first year a contribution was requested from the ccTLDs, we made it so I believe this contribution is being requested FY 2001.
Fay Howard
We have a lot of things to discuss about other SO but first I want some comment on the request of money we had from the DNSO, $15371. Is anybody ready to make some contributions to this, or speak to it?
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
What do we get from DNSO? As far as I understand the DNSO hasn't done anything according to ccTLD.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I'm not sure to what extend I am allowed to speak on behalf of DNSO, I tend to agree that DNSO has been working much more on gTLD issues and gTLD policies. However, it may have some impact on ccTLD. I understand that ccTLD is unhappy with DNSO and we may consider that we are no longer part of DNSO. But as long as we don't say it publicly, I believe we are committed by our first delegation of DNSO and we are continuing to be part of it. I will follow what we decide here, whether we are part of DNSO or not. But as long as we don't make this decision publicly, I consider that we are part of DNSO and therefore we are following this SO and participating. I must say that personally, I think that a lot of issues discussed for gTLD will have impact on ccTLD and we definitely shall be concerned by some of them.
Fay Howard
Is there a document produced that lists where the expenses were used?
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
The Names Council of the DNSO has been trying to estimate the cost of the secretariat and as you perfectly know we had a secretariat at the CENTR and we have now the secretariat for the ccTLD, there is a cost of running business. The lowest possible estimation was $100,000 a year and it was divided by 7. On the DNSO site, there are URLs putting to this budget and how it was established by the Names Council.
Chris Disspain (.au)
Is this money payable to DNSO or ICANN? Is it the same as the ICANN budget the ccTLD is supposed to pay to ICANN or is separate?
Fay Howard
The DNSO is not a legal entity itself and I suspect ICANN collects the money because the ICANN has the bank accounts but it is separate from the ccTLD contributions to ICANN.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I support the principle what Elisabeth has brought up. I agree that we have now got very little in connection with the DNSO and several of us are working very hard to help establish a new structure. Until that is done, we have the obligations to our existing arrangements. We are meeting here today as a constituency of the DNSO and it is part of our bylaws. We have appointed delegates to the Names Council and we are not in a position to say we got nothing from it and we can't pay. What we are saying is that we would like to go to a new structure which is much more relevant, whether or not that principle means we are obliged to pay the entire $15000. Perhaps that is something slightly different. I think Elisabeth is absolutely right, principle is this is the arrangement we started on and I think we got an obligation to front up with some cash.
Chris Disspain (.au)
I agree with them.
Fay Howard
I personally agree until we tell them we are not part of them anymore, we do have to pay. I'm just wondering how we are going to raise that money. Obviously the secretariat is struggling to raise money to support the secretariat, let alone the DNSO. Would requests for voluntary donations be a good idea?
Sue Leader (.nz)
After consultation with the Chair of the Internet Society of New Zealand, .nz will donate $500.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
Being a firm believer in Pay-to-play theory, we, as a ccTLD constituency, is here participating. .vi, which is much smaller than .nz, will donate $500.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
I got a feel that we should get the ICANN related money together. $15000 is 1% of the million and a half dollars we are somehow supposed to raise for ICANN. Lump everything together and go through this painful process of getting the money just once would be much better.
Morton Taragin (.il)
I think it would be much useful, since we are talking about small sums relative to larger sums, to lump up everything together, the ICANN fee, the ccTLD fee, and etc.
Fay Howard
It may not be practical for the current year, maybe for future years it should be part of the negotiating strategy of the ccTLD constituency to negotiate that in with ICANN fees. Is there anybody from ICANN that can speak to that suggestion that the fee is lumped in with the ccTLD. Welcome to our meeting, Stuart.
Stuart Lynn (President of ICANN)
I understand that there is some confusion about the letter I sent about the funding support for ICANN.
The letter that was sent was developed as a result of consultation with your representatives on the budget advisory group and some of you individually. It was intended to avoid some of the confusions that occurred last year, where we sent invoices in advance of any kind of agreement. What the letter that I sent recognizes is that we don't have agreements yet. Any amounts of funding support given will be greatly appreciated. Some of the reason why we believe your support of the ICANN is well deserved, as part of the supporting the global responsibilities of ICANN. As a specific mechanism, there are several points. We included a number what is called fair share contribution, based on a formula developed in consultation with the budget advisory group. There are 3 tiers. The methodology for conveying that amount was what we called a pledge card, a simple statement of intent. If you send us this card with your intent amount, we will take it as evidence of an intent to pay by you.
We urging you if you can, to return it before June 30, it would be greatly appreciated.
Here is the situation that has come up about the idea increasing the contribution and funding of the ICANN budget.
Several issues.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
We want ICANN international. ICANN international means that every one participates in funding ICANN. When we discussed with ICANN staff about the budget, 90% of ICANN budget is coming from the U.S. corporations. What Peter de Blanc is reminding us, you need to pay in order to play. I strongly believe ICANN is necessary, I strongly believe ICANN should be international, and I strongly believe that other part of the world should pay for it. As you certainly know, we have been, AFNIC has been supporting DNSO for that reason. If we want ICANN international, we need to make it international by doing.
Fay Howard
We had a good explanation why the fee should be in with the ICANN fees because that means the 2 constituencies that generally fund ICANN would be funding the DNSO. Given that, do people have more of a preference now for paying their share of the constituency?
Bill Semich (.nu)
I think the only thing we can be sure something like this gets paid is if it's institutionalized. One possible way to make it institutionalized is to make it a responsibility of the secretariat. If the secretariat include this amount as part of the invoice or bill to each member of the constituency, then we can at least post it on the website who has paid it, how much and when and have a single check that cut for the DNSO from the constituency.
Fay Howard
We get the contributions for the secretariat, marked up a little bit to make sure we have enough money to pay the DNSO, and the invoice actually go to secretariat who would take care of it.
Sue Leader (.nz)
As long as we do not the use the word invoice
Fay Howard
When people make their contributions to the secretariat, they will also for this year include a small amount toward the cost of the DNSO.
BK Kim
I will send e-mail
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I think we should move on and give notice that the future is uncertain. I'm not saying at this point that we won't pay in the future because we are going to withdraw, because as yet, we don't have anything to withdraw to. I think we should make it clear that there is no continuing obligation or we are uncertain about the future, or such wording so we don't get into this position again.
Willie Black (.uk)
Let me make this clear. What you are proposing is that the funds we may or may not pay to the ccTLD secretariat are going to be skimmed off to pay the DNSO? Or do we voluntarily say we are paying so much and so much else for DNSO?
Fay Howard
We are voting that we make the DNSO invoice, a responsibility of the secretariat.
Willie Black (.uk)
So then I'm forced to pay for the DNSO. I can't otherwise pay the ccTLD secretariat, so maybe I won't pay the ccTLD secretariat, if they are going to take my money and give it to the DNSO, which I prefer them not to do.
Fay Howard
The alternative is that you make an expressed wish.
Willie Black (.uk)
I don't agree with Peter on his obligations, I have no contractual obligations to pay the DNSO. Like Sabine, I would like to know what DNSO is doing for us and they have done nothing and so I don't feel inclined to pay the DNSO, although I would like to contribute something to the ccTLD secretariat.
Bill Semich (.nu)
What I am proposing is that there be an additional fee or amount added to the amount that the secretariat is expecting each of us to pay. That additional amount added to would be spelled out in the statement invoice pledge card from the secretariat, as specifically being for DNSO. It is the choice of the payer, to decide whether to pay that specific amount or not.
Fay Howard
We should have a vote on that to see if there is consensus. The invoice of DNSO goes to secretariat, the secretariat then asks for contributions for the secretariat funds, and gives an option to pay a small additional fee for the DNSO funds.
Morton Taragin (.il)
If less money than $15,000 is raised, then only that amount will be given to DNSO?
Fay Howard
Yes
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
The ccTLD secretariat receives the invoice for DNSO and if not enough money is raised, the DNSO issues another invoice?
Fay Howard
The message we have to take to DNSO is we will try and raise some funds and they will get what they get. You can't do that to people and then say take the rest out of ccTLD funds.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I have to leave, but will be ready to answer any questions related to whatever decision of the names council.
Fay Howard
So with that in mind, we may have some maybe partly satisfactory solution to DNSO funding for the current year. What we really need to get to is, 1) given the amount of work that DNSO does that relates with ccTLDs, do we actually want to continue to pay an equal share and 2) do we wish to continue to be in the DNSO at all and 3) what are our views on a separate ccTLD SO.
We will have a vote. You have an option of making a contribution to the ccTLD constituency and at the same time you can opt in or opt out to a contribution to the DNSO for the current year.
In favor: 18
Opposed: 0
Abstained: 6
Fay Howard
There are 2 things to consider. 1) Do we remain in the DNSO or move out. If we stay in, do we pay 1/7 equal amount with the other constituency given that their work is totally loaded to gTLD work. 2) Do we move out all together and ask for our own SO.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
We should debate this first, do we stay or do we go?
Fay Howard
Are people happy being in the DNSO?
Morton Taragin (.il)
Staying in or dropping out of DNSO is tied together with the ability of us being able to form something else for its place. If we can form something else in its place, I would personally feel that's the way to go but if we can't do that, we have to stay somewhere, however limited our influences and our ability to get someone on the names council or onto the board is. By dropping out and not having another organization, we're just saying we're not going to play the game anymore. As long as we stay in, we can at least still say we're not getting what we need to be getting here and that is why we need something else.
Fay Howard
The only way to get people on the board is through names council of the DNSO.
Willie Black (.uk)
I was going to vote for us dropping out of DNSO whether it is another organization. I wouldn't mind losing the names council, not that I have anything against the names council. I think we don't get much of the names councils and can keep on meeting as a constituency even though we don't have a DNSO around us, because we still need to talk to each other. The real issue is where are we floating at that point? If they don't want to have us under the ICANN umbrella just because we are own constituency, we can meet across the street. We can still meet in the same place. What is going to be the difference? We should work towards a separate SO. That is why I would now immediately take steps to move out of the DNSO and to give the notice now.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
I can't see any point why we cannot ask for a different SO. I think the only point is to start the process and to think about it, and to start it in a way ICANN can deal with. There is nothing against it.
Chris Disspain (.au)
We should move into negotiations for our own SO. If Willie is correct, and there is not much benefit to us being in the DNSO, the only the costs of being in the DNSO is the fee payable and we already agreed the basis upon which we are going to handle that. It seems to me that there is little to be achieved by moving out of the DNSO, until where it is clear on whether ccSO will be approved and accepted by ICANN. We need to move quickly into negotiations to get that sorted out.
Kilnam Chon (.kr)
ccTLD has every intention to have a good interaction with ICANN or the ICANN board. This channel through DNSO is not working properly at this moment. At the same time, we do have direct communication with ICANN, in particularly funding aspect. If you look at gTLD, NSI has direct communication channel with Verisign and ICANN, which we don't. The DNSO reasonably represent the Verisign interest. We have 2 choices to improve our interaction with ICANN. Do we want to have a separate SO? The ccTLD association is outside of ICANN, which deals with ICANN, just like Verisign deals with ICANN. Do we want to have those 2 organizations or just one is good enough? It's something we have to think about but until then I guess we have to remain in the DNSO because there are so many issues we have to communicate through the SO. Even if the DNSO is not working well for us, it doesn't mean we have to drop out at this moment. First we have to come up with either ccSO and or a ccTLD association, a workable solution. Then we can deal with what to do with DNSO.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
Having been in the names council, I have this sense that we can see very little of that channel, certainly we can't elect one of us to the board. Things they discuss are usually very far removed from our concerns. This would be to the right time to drop out of DNSO and then discuss what to do next. In the DNSO, or outside the DNSO, we will remain as one essential group for ICANN so I don't fear we will lose any chance of our communication with ICANN. Once we are out of DNSO, I think that puts more pressure both on us and ICANN in trying to find a different better way of working together with ICANN.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I wonder if we shouldn't decide the question first. What I was going to say was how we might form this SO and what steps have been taken so far. I wonder if people wanted to look at that first or whether make the first decision to discontinue our role in the DNSO.
Fay Howard
The debate is bringing out a few options. 1) To resign immediately 2) To give notice at the end of the year 3) Stay in DNSO until we have something else, and if so when will we start with the proposal for something else. I agree we need to look at the few issues.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I was going to remind people about where we were up to with the SO itself. People who were in LA may remember that we actually agreed to form a working group to start on that. There was a bit of discussion on the AdCom on how that working group should become constituted and decided that the AdCom itself should form that group. There hasn't been a great deal of visible progress but what I can say is that the ICANN staff are very aware of what we want in that area. There has been a number of discussions with ICANN staff and ICANN board members about the consequences and the restructuring. I have been talking to all of the other constituencies about their views because it seemed to me that their support for the proposal was quite important. I don't want to go any much further than that but to say I'm reasonably confident that restructuring of ICANN is about to occur. Now is the time for us to put forward our SO proposal and it will be properly received. The way I see it working is that we will incorporate ourselves outside of ICANN and form an organization in the same way that Patricio and somebody else mentioned, the external negotiation Verisign has. That is under direct response to the ICANN staff's own request to us that we form a peer organization in which we can negotiate. Seems to be then that we contract through MOU between that organization and ICANN to form its ccSO. In other words, the same way as the IETF and other organization like the address registries, pre existing entities that were there before ICANN, have signed a MOU of understanding with ICANN that says they will serve as it's address registries, its PSO, and its ASO. We will simply sign a MOU that says our new external organization will function within ICANN as its DSO. (?) So we get the best of both possible world, we can take part within ICANN when it suits us but our organization is outside ICANN so that we can negotiate as a peer organization.
Fay Howard
So with that in mind, would you be recommending that we resign from DNSO or give notice, in line with the fact that we have to keep paying until we tell them we are out.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
My personal preference is that we give notice and give a reasonable period rather than an abrupt decision.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
With respect to the now or later, I would certainly believe in a smooth transition and would not advocate resigning now and putting something together later. The concept of notice makes a lot of sense and maybe it could be tied in with ICANN's fiscal year. The second point is that I have already been in discussions and rounds of e-mail and position papers with UNESCO. Following the heels of UNESCO's sponsorship of some form of the internet society as an NGO, UNESCO is looking very favorably on sponsoring the ccTLD or the wwTLD as an NGO under its wing. That is something we can certainly pursue. Not only through the avenues of the offices they have in France but also because mecoiner(?) of our ccTLD thing is a consultant to the secretary General of the UN and is also advanced that concept of wwTLD as being a UN sponsored organization.
Third point, I've been on the names council for 8-9 months and as far as getting someone on the board, well I was a candidate to ccTLD for the board through the names council and that did not work. It is unlikely and probably impossible for ccTLD issues to be advanced in the names council basically because with the existing names council with 3 ccTLD members and a large number of members from constituencies that have the same political ideal which I would classify as the business constituency, gTLD constituency, the intellectual property constituency certainly and partially the ISPs, basically form a voting block that effectively controls the agenda of the names council and controls any votes and committees or working groups or anything else that is going to happen in the names council. Now as I understand it, there will be 2 additional names council members of gTLDs and that will be 2 more votes on the names council that will generally be contrary to ccTLD issues. So I agree and can speak from experience of the names council, through that mechanism it is not an effective way for ccTLD to advance its issues. Finally, I would recommend in forming an outside organization, establishing a non-profit corporation and moving forward to use that non-profit corporation as Peter Dengate Thrush suggests and create through that non-profit corporation a SO with ICANN. Also we should move forward on getting the NGO status through UNESCO to be recognized as a world NGO.
Chris Disspain (.au)
I agree with what both Peters have said and I wonder whether it would be useful for us to form a working group to meet tomorrow morning in the working group time slot to put together a resolution to go before the ccTLD tomorrow and then onto the list, actually dealing with our intentions and then nominate people to go and negotiate with ICANN to get the ccSO up and running as soon as possible.
Fay Howard
You are suggesting that we have a small working group to form a resolution to give our intent to form something and our intent to resign from the DNSO. Maybe we will have a little vote on that and call for some volunteers if it's acceptable.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I would support what has just been said and I volunteer to be involved with that. I strongly support very what Peter de Blanc has said, in particular this business of giving notice to time of ICANN fiscal year.
Fay Howard
We should vote on this and ask for a few volunteers when we have our working group to form a communication to ICANN that we wish to form our own organization. I don't know whether we have consensus yet but I think it has to be an external body but we need to get some wording that people are happy with and that we are giving notice that we intend to withdraw from the DNSO. This could be brought back to the plenary session tomorrow afternoon and then people can approve that wording. As usual, we make it very clear that we speak for the meeting and not for the whole ccTLD constituency and put it out on our list for ratification.
In favor: 16
Opposed: 0
Abstained: 1
This motion is carried.
ICANN ccTLD draft agreement, legacy and triangular
Fay Howard
Draft contract for services between ccTLD manager and ICANN is in your pack. As far as I know, not a lot of progress has been made since our last meeting in Melbourne. I seem to remember that ICANN staff was going to work on a document ready for this meeting.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
Yes, there is a lot of work that has been done but a document is not finished yet. I'm very sorry to say I haven't seen a document.
Fay Howard
We were promised in Melbourne that there would be one long before this meeting. I seem to remember Andrew talking about one back in February or March in Zurich. Any estimated date of arrival?
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
No, but we will have a meeting on 4 June to work with some people here.
Fay Howard
Given that there is a contract that has some consensus in the ccTLD constituency, is it worth reinvesting this document? Is this document going to be taken into consideration in the ICANN draft?
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
Absolutely. We have tried to compare all those documents, the status quo agreement, the CENTR document, and the ccTLD document. The work I was involved in regard to the contract was the comparison of all those documents and discuss it all through. So any inputs would be a big value.
Fay Howard
Let me briefly explain how this draft contract was made, CENTR L&R working group made a draft contract for services which they brought to the ccTLD meeting in LA. The ccTLD constituency as a whole made some suggested amendments to it, then voted upon the meeting and then put to the ccTLD constituency list. It's a draft contract for services and not a complete document but lays out some of the things that the ccTLDs would like to see in an agreement between a ccTLD manager and ICANN, obligations of services on both sides. Some of the legal intricacies of this document is yet to be sorted out; applicable law, definitions, remedies for breach of contract. Would anybody want to spend a lot of time on this? No.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
What is the status of the document that we finished, as a draft, in its transmission to ICANN? Have we simply informally given it to Herbert and Andrew? Or have we formally as a ccTLD constituency transmitted it to ICANN with a formal letter requesting they consider it a model for a contract that we wish to enter into.
Fay Howard
We put it in a communique and that is as formal as we got.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I think that's right. In that case, I think it's incumbent on the board, in a reasonable time frame, to at least respond to us formally.
Morton Taragin (.il)
There is a difference between this draft contract and the best principles document we were looking at this morning. The principles document is a global document and when we finish with that document and is put up, even though someone might make changes in local, it's still going to be pointed as the ccTLD best practices document. Here, what I suspect is, every ccTLD is going to change this or start from something else and end up with their own contract. So, we don't have to get everyone's viewpoint into contract here because it's only between them and ICANN in the end.
Fay Howard
The idea is to get basic principles as guidance and is long been established that 'one size fits all' may not be a solution given different situations and different registries. There is a sub item on this agenda that says 'input from each region'. Is there anybody here that feels in a position to give regional feedback on this document? This item is on the agenda but there is not much we can achieve on this until we get a document from ICANN.
-Input from each region
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
We can't doing anything, we put the contract on the table and it hasn't come back
Abhisak Chulya
When we put this on the agenda, we expected to have a draft from ICANN by this time.
Fay Howard
We should seriously put in our communique about our concerns that a document isn't ready and again that ccTLD has been put to the back workload. We should also mention our disappointment at this and our expectation should be made. We should have something by now. I suggest that we put something in that effect.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
We could use the time to have a discussion about what you want to have in the document. What timing or way you would like to see on this document.
Fay Howard
The timing was yesterday, although we will accept tomorrow. Many ccTLD managers have waited a long time to see this document. Personally, I think rather than getting to the absolute minute descriptions of legal documents, there should be highlights what the details should be. It would be easier for people to read and negotiate about. We should make the outline principles first and people talk about them and when you are happy about it you can get lawyers to go away and turn it into a legal document. I started the debate. What would people like to see of ICANN regards to contract?
Sue Leader (.nz)
What I need, from our perspecitve, is ICANN's response. I need to know what legacy contract will have in it and what triangular contract will have in it. As we would go, I believe in New Zealand a legacy contract, that is obviously the first thing we need to see. My understanding of the way we left this was that we would all go for legacy contracts as long as they didn't exclude moving to triangular contract at some later stage. I don't think we can say very much more until we have a response from ICANN because I don't know what I am discussing.
Fay Howard
For those who may not be familiar, at the last ICANN meeting, we did have some movement from GAC that they will accept the legacy situation, that is registries that are established or in place are not established under any particularly law, not particularly controlled by the government. This is acceptable provided that the contract wording is flexible enough to allow movement across to a contract involves some form of communication from the government.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
I just got an idea, if you would like to involve the government, maybe you can talk to them local in your region or country. It's not up to ICANN to talk to your government.
Fay Howard
We are waiting for these wordings to come out now because the GAC have moved a little way and the ccTLDs seem to be reasonably happy with this. One that would satisfy registries which are government controlled, and one the legacy agreement, which is similar to that we have now, where people run roughly by the 1591 principles. I have been asked to bring up an issue of the fact that 2 registries in the world that we know of, which is Australia and Canada, are moving toward signing agreements in advanced of that and there is some concern that those wordings may set precedent and I would like to bring that to the agenda.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
We are waiting for a response from ICANN, whatever this response is like, whether it's a draft contract, some comment on our draft. It should be a written paper on the table. What I would like to see after this concept, paper, contract came back from ICANN is a procedure how to go on. As a lawyer I know, there is nothing less acceptable sitting there with a wording and guessing what the other person could have meant with it. So afterwards, we need a procedure on how to discuss the following wording, more or less, how we act afterwards with the contract. As long as we have partners coming together in a contract and working out what should be the final solution, we need a procedure in place. Otherwise, we would lose weeks and months.
Fay Howard
Do you see maybe ICANN need to publish broad principles rather than final contracts?
And maybe the ccTLD constituency needs to form a small legal group because in broad principle stage, you can't go around every ccTLD manager. So we would have a ccTLD meeting such as this, the lawyer or the elected people and they go and negotiate with ICANN just on the broad principles.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
CENTR has put a rough contract and it was on the table to discuss about principles. At the moment, I think the CENTR members prefer contract at the end but to start with principles is a good idea
Fay Howard
Do you see involvement of registry lawyers or a few managers in a collective talking to ICANN to bring it forward?
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
I could see this as a possibility, if ICANN agrees on it. I think the ccTLD managers are there and willing talk to them.
Chris Disspain (.au)
I am not aware of that Australia is entering into a contract with ICANN.
Fay Howard
There are many rumors that Australia is signing up something in advance of everybody else.
Chris Disspain (.au)
Perhaps the best clarification I could give you is that this is news to me. We have had no discussions with ICANN, have we Herbert, on entering into a contract of any description and our view would be given both ccTLD and ICANN have agreement on general principles that a contract should contain. It would not sensible for us to enter into a contract until it is completed.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
It's absolutely true. Maybe you would like to think who should sign the agreement on your side? Is it an actual person or organization, or a shared organization between admin contact and tech contact, or sponsoring organization which is almost the same as admin contact. Maybe you could save time by thinking who would sign and who would be the legal entity on the other side. In preparation to this agreement, we would be happy to know who on your side would be. Maybe it would change for some regions and could lead to redelegations in some regions or countries.
Fay Howard
I think from random, I will pick a few registries and find out what the situation would be now. It's an interesting point, even if a contract is ready tomorrow, who would actually be signing the contract?
Abhisk Chulya (sec)
Before we get to who is going to sign it, I have the presentation made in Melbourne making comparison of this document now, vs the information we get from ICANN. Would you like to go through this, the comparison of the document in your hand and the ICANN perspective? 20010309.ccTLD-contracts-comparison.PDT.ppt
Sue Leader (.nz)
Can I ask probably what the key here is? Can ICANN state that the root server contracts have been signed?
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
Not yet, but it's on it's way.
Fay Howard
I'm going to pick some managers in random. Let me take Korea first of all, if you had a contract tomorrow to your satisfaction, who would sign the contract on behalf of Korean registry?
Korea
We are not ready to sign, not because of ICANN but because of internal reasons. We are going through reorganization and there are so many issues we have to solve, like multi-lingual domain names, so we are very occupied in other issues. We don't know who will sign the contract. It takes time to decide.
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
It will take time.
Russia
It's clear for Russia because the ccTLD manager, ccTLD registry, and the admin contact are the same.
UAE
If the contract is ok, we can sign it. We know who will be signing it and that it would be accepted by ICANN.
Israel
No, problem and the person to sign would match up with the expectations.
New Zealand
We will be in 2 months and the person signing it would be Sue Leader.
Fay Howard
On my random selection, we don't have many problems.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
The people have to think of who should sign this. There are 242 registries and we have 30 people here but 150 people who don't know anything about a contract. It is good to make clear who will be the person/organization to sign, maybe prepare a documentation on who the organization is and who is allowed to sign, all the stuff needed to enter into a contract would be very useful and altogether win some time.
Fay Howard
The ccTLD sec can help out by putting something on the list to ask registries on the contact list to consider these issues in advance of being ready to sign.
We can put it on the mailing list and the website so that the registries could give it some thought.
Fay Howard
My conclusion from this is that we take to our communique disappointment that this hasn't been moved along. When we have a draft, you are welcome to contribute something. I suggest that we leave the contracts for now. Without ICANN moving further, there isn't anything more we can do.
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
It's clear that you have to follow the local law.
BK Kim
ICANN raised some delegation and redelegation problem, and for some Asian countries, we are not ready to move forward. And if there is some problem that some Asian countries have that kind of situation, you said that ICANN does not involve a local problem. After they solve the problem locally, then they would come back to ICANN. You raised the issues to many countries to move forward or backward?
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
I think that one useful thing we could do is to explain the process first that you would do public consultation in your region and reach an agreement. If there is no way to reach a decision, you could go back to 1591 again and you would find that there would be a way. If IANA makes a decision, this would lead to at least one party to be unhappy so you should do everything you can, since this is the last resort.
Anonymous
You are saying that if a ccTLD needs updates done to the name servers, they should traditional templates and changes will take place. If those addresses aren't currently working, what happens then?
Herbert Vitzthum (ICANN)
You will find everything is on IANA website. It's part of the documentation project we are in, and at the moment it is absolutely unclear how to do so. You will use the template on the IANA website and send this template to the root/mtmt@iana.org, it's also on the website. This is the full working mail address.
Fay Howard
Today's issues to put in communique
-Best practices document,
-Nigel Roberts (.gg) takes European AdCom over on 7 June
-ICANN lack of participation on draft contract- want to see at least some principles for document very soon.
Izumi Aizu (.jp)
Digital Opportunity Task Force:
There is some report or message from .force. It's digital opportunity task force came into existence after last year after g8 summit in Okinawa. (US, Russia, EU, UK, Canada, Italy, France, Germany, Japan) 8 countries government, each year their head of states meet, the prime ministers, but after Okinawa meeting they agreed to set up special task force (.force) working on digital divide. And somehow Glocom was asked to join this .force as a part of the member of NPO, with the private sector industries representatives and 9 countries and several other international organizations also joined. This could be both dangerous or encouraging message to ccTLD. Developing countries involved were hand picked. The action plan finally agreed on 9 action plans.
Point 2- Improve connectivity increase access and lower costs, which include such language as the development of national network information centers () and infrastructure support for domain name services should be encouraged.
Point 5- Establish and support universal participation in addressing new international policy and technical issues raised by the internet and ICT.
We included the following. 1) support should be provided for the developing countries' stateholders, the government, private companies, NPOs, citizens and academics, to better understand global internet and other ICT technical and policy issues and to participate more effectively in relevant global fora. We didn't explicitly mention ICANN, but frequently in the discussion, ICANN was almost the representative of this new technical and policy standardizing global fora. We were very much aware. And thus, action point 5D, this means many empty seats out of 244, how many are here. So this message is especially for those who want to participate but several reasons, including financial issues, couldn't make it here. Maybe this is a good gesture by the rich nations to bring them in the policy making process, which is very much important to global stability, openness, inclusiveness, development of the internet as we know, and will be. We are trying to implement this action plan into real actions. We will be talking to ICANN or staff, how to pragmatically encourage them to recognize the need and also those who have some resources provide more financial assistants than currently available. People should raise their voices, especially the ccTLDs are very important because you have the coverage of the widest, local regional or global stake holders, within your local communities as well. Please find more information at http://www.glocom.ac.jp/dotforce and http://www.dotforce.org/report.
Fay Howard
We should set link on the ccTLD website.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
We have an active policy of encouraging attendance. How much money are you offering us to allow us to continue with this work?
Izumi Aizu (.jp)
The budget is not decided. We should start with a small amount of money and see how it benefits for both sides, within the range of $10,000-$20,000 per each ICANN meeting or perhaps more. It depends on if you really want it or not and on the benefit for the whole.
Fay Howard
ccTLD constituency and its secretariat should try their very best to make sure people are aware of that.
Day 1 meeting adjourned.
Reception: Sponsored by Netpia.com.
Friday, 1 June ccTLD Constituency Meeting, Day 2
Start at: 9:00 AM, Breakfast sponsored by Register.com
9:00 - 10:00 AM Guest speaker Emmanuel Jolivet- Director Counsel of International Cours of Arbitration, at ICC (international Chamber of Commerce)
Website: http://www.iccarbitration.org/
10:00 - 12:30 Working Group Sessions
Pilar Luque (.es)
In Melbourne, I spoke about the need to have language diversity in the ICANN working procedures. I was asked by Mr. Vince Serf to get the results from the organizational and cause effective needs. The results of my research in relation to organizational and cause effective needs for the function of simultaneous interpreting of the ICANN public forum and board meetings, and the translation of the ICANN documents for public comment facilities are the following:
Simultaneous interpreting cost: Need of 2 interpreters per language a day. Each interpreter costs for 2 days (public forum and the board meeting) 2,000 USD, including salary, travel, accommodation, and per diem. As we are asking for 5 languages to start, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, and French, costs for 2 days for 10 interpreters would be 20,000 USD. To these we need to add the cost of the renting installation of simultaneous interpreting booths, where they work, and headphones with selections of 4 or 5 channels. The rate change from country to country. I am expecting some fees from a company in Marina del Rey. To this we have to add translation. Each 1,000 words from English to five above languages, cost 157 USD. ICANN normally publishes from 5 to 8 documents for public discussions, containing approximately from 3,000 to 5,000 words. We would be facing a cost of from 471 USD to 785 USD per document translated into each language. As we are asking for translation into 5 languages and we would expect ICANN to publish around 5 documents per a meeting, we would be talking about 15,000 USD. Therefore, the total in both simultaneous interpretations and translations of documents would be 35,000 USD per ICANN meeting. Also, the costs for hiring and installing booths with headphones must be added and I would estimate that we would need around 50,000 USD per meeting, all included. As we have 4 meetings a year, the annual cost would be of 200,000 USD. If it is to be founded just by the DNSO, each constituency would have to pay 30,000 USD. In concrete, each of the 345 ccTLD would have pay 122 USD annually. This is nothing compared to what we were expecting. If only the 50 ccTLDs which normally attend these meetings would pay, each would have to pay 600 USD. Can we afford this? Is it worth it? We would need to train the interpreters and translators into the very specific ICANN jargon. The ideal would be that one day ICANN would have it's own interpreting and translating department as the ITU, UN, and EU do. In making ICANN an international organization, we can afford to gather this amount for each meeting, in the form of volunteer donations coming from all supporting organization of ICANN and especially from all the constituencies of the DNSO, which would be really the one benefiting from the introduction of such a service.
A. Stylianou (.cy)
There is a contradiction, if you are to train people into ICANN jargon, you are talking about permanent interpreters, which means you cannot rely on volunteers to offer such a service. You need to have funds in order to maintain permanent staff offering such a service.
Pilar Luque (.es)
I was talking about volunteer donations, not volunteer staffs. These interpreters and translators need to be properly trained and that is very important. Such a service is very much needed for Asians and Spanish and other non English speakers so that they can come forward and say what they want to say. It is their right. On 4 June, Stuart is going to talk about the need for simultaneous interpretations. I am expecting your full support.
Chair asked for volunteers to participate in this Working Group: Fay Howard (Adcom member and leader of this group), Stephan Welzel (.de), Anders Janson (.se), Anthony Bishop (.tv), Bart Boswinkel (.nl), Calvin Browne (co.za), Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR), Margarita Valdes (.cl).
Volunteers for this Working Group are: Peter de Blanc (.vi), Kilnam Chon (.kr), Chris Disspain (.au), Nigel Roberts (.gg), Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz), Patricio Poblete (.cl), Sabine Dolderer (.de), Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR), Xue Hong (.CN), Emil Ancena (.ph), Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr), Oscar Robles (.mx), Eva Frolich (.se), Saleem (.ae), Abhisak Chulya (ccTLD Sec.), Morton Taragin (.il) and many others. Leader of this group is Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz).
These two Working Group will come back and report to the Plenary of their works in the afternoon session.
14:00 - 18:00 Plenary Session III
BK Kim
We have been doing outreach program in the AP area for several years. APTLD, APNIC, and APNIC are working together as a joint outreach program. Committee members consist of one from each AP organizations; APTLD, ccTLD SEC, AP, APIA, APNIC, and MINC. Since October last year, we had 5 outreach programs; Pacific Islands in New Zealand, India, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Shanghai. In AP area, we have separate outreach programs for each AP organization. The funding comes from two sources: APTLD US$7000 and KRNIC US$10000. Local organizations support lodging and meal during the seminar. APNIC provides the venue. We have the presented materials posted on the website (http://www.apoutreach.org).
Abhisak Chulya
On 12 May, the ccTLD Secretariat outreached to Africa. In Accra, Ghana, we set up a meeting to coincide with AFNOG meeting and we had 22 African TLDs participating in the meeting. We had 2 meetings: one on 12 May and another for half of day on 15 May. The first day was a preliminary meeting to find out who they are and what their problems are. On 15 May, we had a meeting with a number of AfTLDs, some ccTLD managers and some registries. We set up an organizing committee to form an AFTLD and Yann Kwok is the Interim Chair. The organizing committee also set up a mailing list for AFTLD. Any other African countries may also subscribe to this mailing list. The timeframe for setting up AFTLD is 6 months, have to come up with the people and rules, so AFTLD can be a good representation from Africa. Especially in the AdCom, we have one representative from each region, and we are pushing towards that. Many of African registries have problems in terms of redelegation issues and Andrew McLauglin and Peter de Blanc were also there listening to their problems. I think there are a lot to be done especially in terms of helping registries. Hopefully, we can have some progress in the next 6 months to report to all of you. Information can be found at http://www.apoutreach.org/africa
Fay Howard
With regards to AP outreach, are you seeing tangible results?
BK Kim
In the Melbourne meeting, APTLD made a plan to invite 10 ccTLD registry manager, but the notice was too short. Only 2 registries could come, East Timor and Vietnam.
Fay Howard
What about Africa? Will people participate in mailing lists?
BK Kim
They will make the AFTLD website. I will link the AFTLD website to the ccTLD website.
Abhisak Chulya
The website existed but nothing was done. Now it will be updated.
Saleem Al Balooshi (.ae UANIC)
We have done some outreach for Gulf corporate council in the Middle East region. We have 6 members in the Gulf corporate council: .bh, .ae, .qa, .om, .kw, and .sa. We have invited the 6 ccTLD managers to the Gulf Corporate Council and on the first meeting in February, 4 members, .qa, .om, .ae, .bh, attended. On the first meeting, we had an ICANN workshop, explaining to them the importance of participating the ICANN meeting and ICANN workshop activity. On 16,17 June, we have a second meeting in Dubai. The first day will be a multilingual meeting and the second day will be a ccTLD meeting. YJ Park and Andrew McLaughlin have confirmed to participate.
Fay Howard
Any other regional efforts? No. It's good to get progress report.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
We went away to prepare a statement, speakers from France, Sweden, China, Australia, S. Korea, Israel, Chile, Germany, Netherlands, Virgin Islands, Mexico, China, and New Zealand.
1. It's unanimous that we should depart from DNSO
2. We will present this as evolution rather than revolution
- we have separate relations, relate directly to the staff and board
- we do not lose the benefits with the liaison with other DNSO
3. There are some concerns with the effort in developing the right relation with ICANN structure. The goal is a positive one to give effect to our views, our contributions, and our role, in the contribution we can make to ICANN. In particular, this is not to be seen as a tactic to improve our position in the DNSO.
These were the summary points and the communique will contain the individual items explaining just very briefly why were dissatisfied with the current structure, without going into a long list of complaints and who is to blame. To say, again the positive state that we want to contribute, to mention the fact that there have been number of developments over the past year or so, that we would probably want to use our existing structure, the permanent secretariat that we announced so proud of for example. There is some work needing to be done on Bylaws, to establish a new SO, and some technical issues about exactly when we cut off current relationship. We have, for example, 3 members on the president's task force on funding, who are there because they are the members of the DNSO constituency. We obviously have 3 members on the names council, so we need to go through a process where we close down those activities and open up the new ones. We decided that the most important issue was not to try and solve the mechanics, the process is just to acknowledge that we have to have them, and try to get some impact from the unanimous decision we have reached which is that we need to move out of the DNSO. We talked a little bit about the probable reaction and the current reaction of the board, the other constituencies, and staff. They are, in general, in favor. The final point is that we have made arrangements to talk with the other constituencies with tomorrow. This is a draft, and we can go through the principles, to make sure I have it all.
The members of the ccTLD constituency meeting in Stockholm have agreed as follows:
Principles - on commencing the process of formation of cc Support Organization
We had a considerable debate about the last item, about whether to see a deadline, do it immediately, or something else. Our conclusion was that we probably shouldn't do anything too radical, that we should announce the intention to go and start building a new organization and step into it and that we would expect this process, which is going to be quite complicated, to have had significant progress by the Uruguay meeting in September and some kind of finale by the LA meeting.
Kilnam Chon (.kr)
I would like to propose the change "staff and board" to "ICANN", because we also have to work with the DNSO.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
Negotiating the funding part should not be done by another body.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
Point 2.4 is a fact, we were asked to form a peer organization- 1999 meeting
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
Phrasing comment, change the expression "Report to the board" to "communicate with the board"
Bart Boswickel (.hl)
Add to 4, that we have talked about the IANA work council, that we're expanding operational co-operational with ICANN. So there is some progress in the corporation.
Change wording to "Members note the progress made with regard to the operational co-operation with the IANA function."
Morton Taragin (.il)
In paragraph 2, we note that we don't have representation now, perhaps it's even stronger than that, legally possible but highly improbable.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
Paragraph 2, actually we never participated actively with GA, DNSO from the beginning.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
Original
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
Name council members, as a group, ccTLD people did not participate with mailing lists.
Perhaps we shouldn't let this be understood that the current names council members aren't doing their jobs, because they have.
Fay Howard
You may want to give some concern to setting dates is the fact that when do you stop paying? Does the funding goes on? We are having difficulties raising $15,000 without carrying any more debts.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
We didn't have a solution to that. We noted that one of the dates we could declare our involvement and their liability for expenditure, could be 30 June, which is the end of the financial year. We had quite a lot of support for that, but no real resolution that things would be done by then. Perhaps we could agree that we are not going to include any of the expenditure after that date.
Bart Boswickel (.nl)
We need to be careful not inter mingle the funding issues with the SO issues.
Fay Howard
I 'm talking about the funding of DNSO.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
How would people feel about reference not incurring any further expenditure after the end of the financial year?
Morton Taragin (.il)
Is $15000 for last year or this year?
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz),
I understood from Elisabeth that it's for the period ending in 30 days. And in 11 months time, we will get another bill.
Fay Howard
Are people happy about this wording? This would be one of the items in the meeting communique
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz),
We should be formal about this and have a vote. I would ask for unanimity of those present, we obviously have to go to the list but want to be recorded that this is a very clear statement of all of us, that this is the way we want to go.
Sue Leader (.nz)
Was there any comment on names council?
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
General point, a lot of work have gone to this, I think this communique will send a very important message in public and formally to ICANN from the ccTLDs. The 20 managers who attended this morning were unanimous in their agreement as to the substance of the message we are going to send. It is very important for everybody who represents a ccTLD registry to actively vote in favor for this. It is very important to send a strong message.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
Would like to consider a different wording on 8. The wording now implies that we don't know what the future SO will look like. We will try to find a structure that really fits the ccTLDs when we start from scratch. Therefore, we start from bylaws and the new secretariat but we will try to find a structure for the real needs of the ccTLDs, so I think the bylaws are just the starting point. But it's not said so far that these will be the bylaws for the future SO, which I think it looks like a bit too much at this moment.
Fay Howard
We are a loose association, not incorporated anywhere, we don't have bylaws, we don't have article for associations. The consensus of the working group was not to use the word bylaws at all. We need to use loose language that talks about existing arrangements or infrastructure, without actually talking about bylaws.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
Good point.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
With your clear message voting, were you suggesting that we have a role call poll and publish which way each cc votes on this?
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
No, just the numbers
Fay Howard
Put the motions, that we adopt this wording and put into the communique which we send to ICANN public communication following this meeting.
In favor: 31
Opposed: 0
Abstained: 0
Fay Howard
Do we have plan to move this on? AdCom?
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz),
Tomorrow during the workshop, we will hear from other constituencies. They will support our call for SO. We will reconsider whether the AdCom is the right organization to take this forward or whether we need a new working group.
Fay Howard
We looked at the original documents, the Berlin principles, which stand to this day. We had not had any particular voting consensus since that. This document was simple and obviously needed more work doing. Given that we are not incorporated, the working group felt that to give a title complexity such as 'bylaws' or 'articles of association' is not suitable. Also given the fact that we actually thought you were putting together the structure of the SO next door, we thought that maybe the SO would overtake the ccTLD constituency so we went back the Berlin principles and decided to amend them. Basically we are taking some of the good ideas and some more detail from the bylaws. We are sorry we didn't get finished but it was quite detailed. We do promise that the next day or so we will have something to give to the secretariat. Also, we did some voting thoughts for example, some ccTLDs represent more than one TLD and maybe they should be given appropriate votes. We took some stuff to do with the duties with the Administrative Committees.
Funding committee members: Bill Semich, Peter de Blanc , Willie Black
Willie Black (.uk)
In essence, we are coming to the end of this budget cycle. They were pleased that we have adopted the 3 tier model. If you recall, at the last meeting, we had $500 and $5,000 band model and 28 countries who were in tier 3. The bulk of the funding was to come from the 28 countries, as a result of some discussions within CENTR, CENTR took its share of the port, which was around $700,000, and split themselves up (14 countries) into 2 bands, one at $85,000 and one at $30,000. We've come up with a commitment within CENTR for around the $700,000 mark.
That leaves 14 countries that aren't in CENTR, 4 in South America, a couple in Asia, and some of the Pacific Islands. Of course the CENTR did its own things for its members and these countries will have to deal with the situation themselves. Although we said within CENTR we would sort out the tier 3 members of CENTR, nevertheless, Stuart Lynn sent out pledge cards to every ccTLD. The money in the pledge card was calculated in the basis of number of domain names which we always, as a constituency had a majority, felt that it was appropriate to be a self-selected band structure. Nevertheless, they did send out on these tier 3 people, based on the number of domains. A pledge card which is a voluntary mechanism, you don't need to pay what is on the pledge card. They would just like you to agree to a figure which can be greater or less than what is on that suggested figure. It is fairly easy going, and the CENTR members of the tier 3 did choose and come up with a structure that provided $700,000. They are pleased at this approach and we were generally pleased with their more openness to a flexible way of working. The idea is to continue this into the following year and we think they will continue with a band 1 and a band 2. I'm not going to say that CENTR has got the right model because we will do what is convenient for us and other regions to do like wise. ICANN would like the pledge cards before the end of June. Even if you haven't paid the money, they can bank it as receipts for the current year and it means their auditors are happy. Stuart Lynn will send us email in the middle of June. You can pay more or less than on the suggested list.
The registrar, registrant fees, weren't sure. Stuart is going to work out a mechanism for getting consultation for the budget group from each of the constituencies that pays. He would probably ask us if we could find 3 representatives again for the next budget cycle. At one point, I did note, that for the sake of our non-English speaking people, of the 22 people at the table, in the budget group and finance group combined which is part of the board of ICANN, there were 5 non-English speaking people. Maybe, if we were asked again, more diversity would be useful but on other hand, Stuart would like a certain amount of continuity. So at least there is similarity from one year to another.
Bill Semich (.nu)
This billing period, is for last year, funding for what is already been spent. New pledge cards are in September for this year.
Willie Black (.uk)
Stuart Lynn recognized we will not reach contractual agreement with all cc, even in the next financial year for ICANN. The idea is, at the end, the figures that we pay will be built into our contracts, so there will be certainty. It will be written into the contract eventually to get away from this kind of arbitrary divisions. Our contributions will roughly be about the same.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
The current psychology of what is going on in the budget process with ICANN is, overall there is a kinder and gentler attitude, more respectful of the ccTLD constituency, where as before it was more a dictatorial, take it or leave it, kind of attitude. We are getting a feeling of mutual corporation and respect. I see this as a positive sign.
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
I thank the 3 representatives. Are they doing it for us? I'm not sure how this fits into the overall hierarchy of things, as far as I can tell, we haven't actually given our delegates any instructions to go and fight for a particular ccTLD position. They are not reporting back that they've achieved one, what to do next. Whether we need to accept the budget as presented, meet some kind of approval of the ccTLDs, or just go home and look at it individually. Each country is going to have it's own individual reactions to the budget? How do we draw some kind of a ccTLD view on the budget?
Fay Howard
1) Direction on the splitting of the fees for last year
2) I don't think we've heard much about the budget for the coming year and our contributions to that budget
Could one of our esteemed 3 representatives talk on those issues?
Willie Black (.uk)
We didn't discuss the expenditure budget for the year beginning July. I believe that was settled after the previous meeting in Melbourne. It is the one the board is going to be approving.
Fay Howard
Do you feel that the ccTLD input was taken into consideration in that budget?
Willie Black (.uk)
There is one issue that is open here in my mind, we wanted to see more money spent on outreach. I think I'm yet to see some more of that worked out in terms of what ICANN is prepared to do. They certainly took on board the idea of putting more staff in. I felt they moved enough for this year. What we must do, is whoever are delegates next year, get a good briefing from this constituency or SO before the expenditure budget for the year beginning in July 2002 is approved. So that we can influence the direction and I think there was some talk yesterday about Stuart trying to give us questions of priority about where they should put the balance of the expenditure.
Fay Howard
The secretariat should take an action for the AdCom to address this. For the next year, somehow, we have a mechanism for taking in input of the constituency feeding it into whomever we elect to represent us.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
There was also a lot of channels between the people representing us in the budget group, as Willie reported, he gave a lot of reports also to the list and take the briefing from meeting going back. There is a lot of discussion going on within CENTR about how going further with the funding and how to stable these problems with ICANN.
Fay Howard
It's a good point but we don't have somebody from every region on this.
Willie Black (.uk)
There was very little discussion on the TLD list as a result of the message I sent. I'm afraid that the TLD lists tend to be taken up with other discussions, nothing on the substance of the expenditure budget on the direction we would like ICANN to go in.
Jorn Grotnes (.gm)
Do we have a feel for what's going to happen there, for the countries who aren't able to pay $500?
Willie Black (.uk)
If they don't get the $500 in, they will ride them off as bad debts. They will need to curtail their expenditure or they'll lead into reserves.
Jorn Grotnes (.gm)
I know that there are African ccTLDs who cannot afford $500.
Willie Balck (.uk)
The bulk of the funding is in the 28 tier-3 people.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
I would suggest to the African countries to fill in a pledge card for $5, $10, or something, so at least they get a little feedback. I also suggested to the ICANN budget committee, $50,000 budget item be budgeted to pay the $500 contributions of those who needed the subsidy. Now there is a just formed AFTLD, the people in Africa would be best suited to identify who actually need the subsidy and those who just don't want to pay. $50,000 did not go into the budget but in a sense it's in the reserves and perhaps it would go into next year's budget. I would recommend that the pledge card be filled out for small amount and sent in, rather than ignored.
Jorn Grotnes (.gm)
If you look at the budget, actual payment, $0.1 for domain, big domain payers are paying that, the middle tier people are paying $0.3 per domain, the lower tier pay $1 per domain.
Fay Howard
Any more comments on finance? Our disappointment on the delays of the ICANN contracts.
Willie Black (.uk)
It should be part of the communique not the finance committee.
Peter de Blanc (.vi)
We, ccTLDs, were resisting what ICANN was throwing out to see what we would buy for a contract. The status quo document and these various other documents, the world wide round of PowerPoint presentation showing the 2 way agreement, the 3 way agreement, and how it might be or not be. So basically ICANN was putting out to us various schemes of what contracts might look like and we weren't liking it. So they have backed off, now thinking about this more rationally. I don't feel, since we have been sending them messages that we were not happy with what they were putting towards us. I don't think it is appropriate for us to go there and start demanding contracts. We know they will go one ccTLD at a time. There may well be a different contract for every one in the top 28, and the bottom 100 won't be gotten around to for at least several years. The strategy is for them to work it out one cc at a time.
Fay Howard
I want clarification on what I was saying, we had a consensus yesterday that the communique should mention disappointment that there hasn't been any progress and especially there hasn't been response to the draft contract that we formally pointed them to last time. One small response on behalf of the Russian registry as an example, some registries cannot pay anything unless there is contract in place.
Willie Black (.uk)
Stuart is very happy to generate an invoice for whatever reasonable services might be able to be paid, rather than a pledge card. He is flexible. I would talk to Stuart how you can reach an agreement with ICANN.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
As we have been looking into the contracts with ICANN, it is very complicated. I tend to believe both Peter de Blanc and Willie Black are correct that we should not blame ICANN for not providing anything.
Fay Howard
We need to think of the items for our communique
The secretariat has made a contribution to the communique concerning the appointment of the permanent secretariat.
Items for the communique
1) announce in one sentence that Nigel Roberts joins the AdCom
2) leaving DNSO, forming a new SO
3) Permanent Secretariat
4) Disappointment over contracts
5) Brief mention that a paragraph was changed in the Best Practices document.
Morton Taragin (.il)
We just change the internal document and present it to the board when it is done
Fay Howard
We have to go to the GAC meeting.
There hasn't been a lot of progress since the last meeting. At the last GAC meeting, we saw a relaxation of GAC position respect of legacy agreement, they are happy for ccTLDs to sign contracts under the existing basis, provided that the contract wording is flexible enough to allow transition to a trilateral contract if required. We need to decide what we want to say. We might want to mention that we have worked on an initial proposal to withdraw from the DNSO and investigate a ccSO.
Patricio Poblete (.cl)
We should break this important new first at the ICANN public forum and also I'm not sure it's any of their business to worry about how we relate to ICANN.
Fay Howard
Any other items that should be mentioned?
Peter Dengate Thrush (.nz)
We just have a request from the press for the tapes of the DNSO withdrawal. Is there any reason it cannot go out? It's out anyway.
Fay Howard
Sabine is suggesting to send e-mail to the ICANN board that we are withdrawing from DNSO and set up a ccSO.
Write it on the communique Is there any problem then mentioning it at the GAC meeting?
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
If we send information to the press, then we mention it to the GAC, of course. I don't want to be directed by the media.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
We should present it to the board and the results at the GAC meeting.
Sue Leader (.nz)
I disagree entirely. What I like to see is doing ICANN board the courtesy of following proper process. Normally the proper process is to include this in the direct communique at the public forum to ICANN, but the press already has it and we agreed to email it to the board. That is still not the formal presentation and it is not part of the GAC business. It is our relationship and until we have made it formal public, I think it is inappropriate to give to the GAC. They will have heard about it, but we don't raise it.
Fay Howard
We will have a poll to see if we should mention this to the GAC. Result is about even.
If we are asked, we will say. Do we have an agenda? What are we going to say?
Calvin Browne (.za)
GAC outreach should be mentioned.
Fay Howard
Disappointed that no progress has been made for contract.
Sue Leader (.nz)
Did the GAC invite us? Do we have to say anything? Or are they talking to us?
Fay Howard
We don't but we should.
Bill Semich (.nu)
The only thing relevant to a GAC meeting is that we continued to work with best practices document and made some progress. That's all we need. Why mention our problems with ICANN to GAC?
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
Are we giving a communique to the GAC?
Fay Howard
We are not.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
So our country will learn our communique from the press.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
Maybe we should mention that there will be a communique to the board so they can gather some information, a sort of compromise
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
Why shall we treat it a different way?
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
It's a communique for the board so we should give it to the board first and then somebody else. (GAC)
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
It was given to the press.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
The press was in the room. Don't give it to the press firmly
Fay Howard
A good compromise.
Kilnam Chon (.kr)
Why don't we send a message to ICANN board, then cc, then to the GAC. At the GAC meeting, we just tell them we are going to send this communique to the ICANN board. So it is indirect.
Fay Howard
Mention it that we have done some work on opposition regarding the DNSO and this will be mentioned in the communique to which GAC will be copied.
-GAC outreach
-brief mention of the DNSO
-best practice
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
Regard funding, that ccTLDs have made progress
Fay Howard
Sabina thinks, ccTLD constituency has made significance progress in funding issues with ICANN.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
We are coming to a solution, in a common way. Not figures, better communications between ICANN and ccTLD
Peter Dengate Thrushn (.nz)
There is no consensus, when we received feedback from budget committee, we still haven't got a ccTLD position. We didn't take a position on what we heard. I understand that some Europeans have agreed among themselves to make a contribution at a certain level. That is not with respect to any ccTLD position.
We can create one, but at the moment we don't have one. We could mention the good work done with the outreach in Africa.
Meeting Adjourn.