| Home | | | Meetings | | | AdCom | | | ccTLD | | | Participants |
Chair: Peter de Blanc, North America AdCom and .vi
Co-chair: Maureen Cubberley, CIRA, .ca
Donation at the gate: 2,950 USD
Written by: Abhisak Chulya and Seung-Yeon Yoo
ccTLD Meeting on Nov. 14 13:30 -16:00
Peter de Blanc, Chair.
Plenary Session 4 (13:30 - 16:00)
4.1 Security Issues
Peter Mott (.aq)
There are only seven people in the room that do the security work. It should not be discussed with other people.
Peter Dengate Thrush (AdCom)
We should prepare two best practices: normal best practices and security best practices.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
Those want to have IANA database changed, they can give the information the secretariat so it can keep the record of how long it takes to make the changes.
Peter Mott (.aq)
The time to make the network robust so it will tolerate it is now, when the things are running well. I found calling IANA works better to have the information changed a bit faster than e-mails.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
I agree that the IANA database is emergency issue. Information related to ccTLD manager is not coordinated in any place. I believe being able to observe IANA database for ccTLDs all the time is important. There is a lot of issues to put all together in a clean way and it is important that we are able to contact everyone in the IANA database. There needs work to be done in IANA group.
I was supposed to draft paper about IANA DB to start the discussion of how it should be and what we wish it to be. I hope, within CENTR, we will have some sort of paper, to see which ccTLD information is needed.
Morton Taragin (.il)
There are 2 issues. You have to plan for that eventuality, ccTLD root servers and several others. If something happens, you might want to go to another zone. Time is going to come that you might need to change something on a fly and to address that; there is a problem of authenticating the request. They said they wanted to work with the ccTLDs so they can quickly authenticate whom they are talking to and I think that is something we do have to address. How we set up communication is something we just have to decide and come up with.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
We should do this and they should do this. With NSI and Rootservers, IANA is already doing it using PGP for authentication. Then why can’t they use it with us?
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
There could be 3 possible working groups…presentations by Sabine, Jaap, and Kilnam and we could have WG that can address the issues.
A small group could develop a best practices regarding security.
Sabine proposed to expand the concept of the shared ccTLDs back up or secondary server.
Are there any volunteers to draft the Mission statements and IANA statements? Nigel volunteers, we will be able to report that we are doing something.
Anyone want to draft a Best practices for security?
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
I recommend putting in a separate paper because you have to review it in a regular basis.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
The on-going focus of this ICANN meeting is something we have to change periodically. Volunteers: David Keegel (auDA)
ccTLD back up and secondary server volunteers: Sabine Dolderer (.de)
Vincent Chen (.tw)
Breakout Network Security Discussion 10 Points Suggestion to ccTLD security Issues
20011111.ICANN-network-security-ChineseGroup.html
There is a procession output by Chinese on the security issue.
There are 10 suggestions to the ccTLD security issue.
Peter Mott (.aq)
I have objections to most of them. I would encourage from what should be done and not done, regarding the root. We should focus on our own root servers and not show any concern regarding the operation of the root. The root servers regarding ICANN or IANA are not our business.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
It would be better for different servers to run in different ways instead of ICANN giving us specific software to use. ICANN telling us how to operate our server is not good.
Peter Mott (.aq)
ICANN cannot tell root servers what to do.
Sabine Dolderer (.de)
Exactly. It is not ICANN's duty to make operational duties to root server managing.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
If we leave out the part about the root servers, is there anyone who has objections including those items on our report?
Can we see what they were?
David Keegle (.au)
I was wondering whether the details of those points might be referred to these working groups we are setting up?
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
Sure. And I agree that we should leave the root servers out of this because that is their business. We may talk to the root server operators directly.
Peter Dengate Thrush (AdCom)
It's a good suggestion PdB had, talking to the root server operators directly, not just for this reason but coming back to any problem we might have with the contract. For a long time we’ve been focusing a contract with ICANN that has to do with delivery of services but we found out that ICANN will not be able to guarantee root server services. So why don't we go directly to the root server operators to talk about security and other issues. We'll find formal contact with the root server operators much to our advantage.
4.2 DNSO Funding
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
DNSO Fiscal Year ends December 31. Before withdrawing from the DNSO, it is a good idea to pay our part of the fee.
Are there any comments?
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
In some respects, I don’t think it is productive to revisit the decision we have already made. We can just put in our report tomorrow that we have reconfirmed our intention of withdrawing from the DNSO.
Elisabeth Porteneuve (.fr)
We have already agreed that we will pay.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
We are now talking about year 2002.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
So do you agree that we should pay for the past?
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I am not going to pay.
Morton Taragin (.il)
Just because we are going into the future, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay for the past
As far as contributions for year 2002, we’ll see where we are at the point we leave the DNSO and maybe pay for the year we are still in the DNSO. We don’t want to leave on bad terms and should pay for the future and pay our debts.
Peter Dengate Thrush (AdCom)
This is all about politics and the money is not substantial. This is about whether or not we are part of an organization. Perhaps the appropriate is a compromise that we will only pay for half of next year, pay a little bit of something until ccSO is in place.
4.3 Update on ccSO
Update since the meeting 2 days ago, when we had presentations from BC/ISCPC/ICP, we saw that the BC appointed an liaison office. It is a good idea for us to appoint a liaison officer for each constituency. The AdCOm could just appoint a liaison officer, to communicate with other constituencies and keep in good relations with them. My suggestion is that AdCom appoint a liaison officer to the other constituencies.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
The sec should put out to the cctld-mailing list for volunteers. (one for each constituency) It could consume some time so people without the time to do this should not volunteer.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
The AdCom can come up with 'job description’
Peter Dengate Thrush (AdCom)
We started the process of getting the GAC’s support and we should get into getting formal support from ASO and PSO.
4.4 ALSC report
ccTLD comments on ALSC report:
1. ccTLD does not agree that membership should be based on domain name
registration. In the event that At-Large membership is based on domain
name registration, ccTLDs may not be required to provide whois,
database, or other information, or in any way increase their cost or
administrative overheads.
2. ccTLD agrees that the AT-Large should be self organized and
self-funding.
If there is a fee for membership or voting, ccTLD should not be
required to collect those fee.
3. Number of directors: ccTLD has no comment.
Note: We also agreed that, if any specific ccTLD wished to become more
actively involved in the At-Large election process, they are free to do
so.
*Peter Dengate Thrush had a meeting with the ALSC in regards the ccSO. He drafted the following paper.
Draft agreement between ccSO and ALSC.
13 November 2001.
To
the extent local laws and other conditions permit, individual ccSO* members
will be free to choose to provide assistance to externally generated efforts
to set up and administer the ALSO and will in any event, be kept informed of
organizing and outreach activities in their local Internet community.
4.5 ccTLD Contracts
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
I would like to invite Maureen here to discuss the contracts.
About the contracts:
Chris Disspain (.au)
That is not the case. If it is, it's not the situation we have right now.
David Keegle (.au)
It may eventually happen.
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
There are 2 things: What is actually happening and what will happen.
During the private dinner AdCom had with Stuart, he said that once you sign tri-angular contract, US government has no part.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
We'll invite Maureen Cubberley who has agreed to tell the experience .ca had.
Maureen Cubberley (.ca)
We all saw the public contract. CIRA started to work on that contract and took it to ICANN. ICANN answered some of that question and went into making that contract acceptable for .ca
1 to 1 agreement with ICANN
He wasn't interested in joint negotiation, ran countered to what we encountered. We asked for clarification of which way ICANN wants. Do you want CANADA to be negotiating our own contract, which some part may be in interest of other ccs or would you want to have a part of contract similar with other ccs?
That has impact to our contract. They would like core issues that are common. Everything we negotiated could be in your contract as well as yours.
There is not yet enough areas in common between CIRA and ICANN, for us to share any of the information. However, we want things nailed down before we come to you with what we have achieved. There is not enough agreement and we are trying to find common ground for drafting.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
How many hours of professional legal services has been used from CIRA's side?
--
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
ICANN wanting ‘core pieces’ of these contracts, do you know if ICANN are negotiating with other ccTLDs?
-I have no information
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
Is there actually a contract between auDA and ICANN published?
-On both the ICANN and auDA site
Willie Black (.uk)
It is very important to note what ICANN’s role is.
I don't want to be part of ICANN and I don't need a contract. All I need is a MoU.
Dan Christensen (.dk)
What are the difference with auDA and CIRA’s contracts?
-Level of negotiation methodologies, CIRA: deal on principle based, whereby we know what we want to get and state how we will be able to get it. ICANN was using a different approach, starting with hightest-level of what they want and..
What is the time line?
-Unlike the gTLD's contracts, the cc's contracts are signed and that is it.
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
Whether ccTLDs have signed the contract or not, ICANN will do it's function; ICANN will continue updating IANA. I would like to note we are having difficulty changing the IANA DB.
General Comments:
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
I am concerned about .tv's comment.
IANA is treating some registries different from others.
It is breach of bylaws of equal treatment.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
We should "track" the request to the IANA. Email to secretariat when we request change and we will all know how long it takes to make that change.
Normal IANA function will not be preformed unless there is a contract.
Marianne Wolfsgruber (CENTR)
There is no re-delegation without a contract
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
What we are requesting, is that admin contact should be changed into more detail.
Chris Disspain (.au)
If we didn't sign contract, the redelegation wouldn't go through,
Nigel Roberts (.gg)
Changing information on IANA database, they are considering it as re-delegation.
Anthony Bishop (.tv)
Our whole situation is silly...
Maureen Cubberley (.ca)
Ask question how many ccs had IANA changes be related to contract.
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
The secretariat should collect request changes and put it on the webpage.
Then we will all know how long it takes one change to be made.
Peter Dengate Thrush (AdCom)
We want to restrict the contract to services but that effort has been rejected. Stuart said that they could sign the contract restricted to services. Do we accept?
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
It may be ICANN's political maneuver. ICANN is not in control of root servers, they do not have it to give.
Willie Black (.uk)
I have 2 points to make.
Chris Disspain (.au)
In that case, what do we do about ccs that are in good relations to government, and that government wants a contract?
Willie Black (.uk)
Then try to persuade your government that ICANN is really not necessary and can get a MoU.
Peter Dengate Thrush (AdCom)
Good theory, the MoU ICANN has requires contract to deal with delegation, re-delegation, and their governments.
Peter Mott (.aq)
It's about trust and confidence
Morton Taragin (.il)
We should add a line that we are disturbed that we are not going into a non-service agreement and that we are concerned about the quality of root servers.
Peter Dengate Thrush (AdCom)
What are we going to about the 2 contracts?
Peter de Blanc (Chair)
Stuart said it is going to be 1-1 contracts
Willie Black (.uk)
Small members of CENTR will get strength in sticking together.
4.6 Secretariat Funding
The executive director showed a list of countries that have already contributed to the ccTLD Secretariat. The Secretariat needs more support from the members of the ccTLD constituency.
4.7 Communique of the ccTLD Support Organization (in Formation)
The communiqué drafted in Marina del Rey includes the discussion on the ccSO formation:
The communique also includes issues such as Internet Security, Internationalized Domain Names, Contract with ICANN, IANA Services, and the ALSC report.
The communiqué can be seen at
20011112.ccTLDmdr-communique.html