| Home | | | Meetings | | | AdCom | | | ccTLD | | | Participants |
| 2002-06-24 09:07:43 | Nigel Roberts: Good morning, Ladies and gentlemen.
Peter Dengate Thrush: good morning. I am from .nz. from APTLD. Talk about ccTLD position on ICANN reform. It's important to remember that this is on going process and ICANN is looking for ICANN at larger and also NC task force. As for as ccTLD is concerned, we have announced that we would leave ICANN. What happen is Stuart Lynn proposed ICNN reform. That brought the restructuring in focus and seriour steps by ICaNN players. Towards the end of May, the recommendation from committee decide that it's too late for this meeting. To certain extent, on friday, the board proposed a new material, blue prints. We will do two things today. We will present this blueprint and then will discuss about this. Please see Peter Dengate Presentation at 20020624.ICANNReform-PDT.ppt Peter Dengate Thrush is still making presentation on the above ppt. |
| 2002-06-24 10:58:14 |
APTLD POSITION ON ICANN REFORM: Dr. Lee: APTLD MET YESTERDAY. The position is focusing on Lynn paper. Apparently, it has received some interests. APTLD leads to imposition of g-solution. What is the intent of interaction needs is not clear yet. APTLD required entry in IANA database. We also support white paper. We do not favour enhance role of governments. ERC places GAC appointees on every issue. APTLD approved of ccSO. APTLD maintain independent review process. We has resolved to seek clarification from ERC. Some of questions are: 1. What is the interplay and whar are the other identifiers which requires the intense interaction with ICANN of page 11, para 2? 2. What do the extra appointees to the international calls? What is the imbalance in the ccso? If the Noncom is in response to the need for at large representation, Comments: There are occasional lapses in language in the Report where g-names are not clearly distinguished from c-names. There is no reason given as to why the ccSO could not separately incorporate, nor function addition to this. In conclusion: We are cautiously optimistic This is a good position to negotiate from. CENTR position: Marianne: CENTR has taken a different approach. The requirement is distinguished in different parts. One part is technical function which is IANA function. One of the key concern for CENTR is ICANN did not take in account in the past and is not likely to take accout into the future in that the distinction between gtld and cctld. Global policy for cctld can be seen if at all in very limited role. When it comes to icann funding, centr has funded icann generously. To cross-subsidise this role is not appropriate for cctld. This services are mainly related to iana database and iana services. Another distinction in our paper, cctld registries are based locally. We recommended cctld has to be based in the area of top level domain. I want to make a few additionally points. The changes of cctld managers or redelegations must be seen as local issue in our mind. But by no means the existing managers is subject to any arbitrary principle. It should base on the technical competent. Otherwise, the system become unstable. Wille black wants to add a few point. |
| 2002-06-24 11:00:36 | Willie Black's presentation: You should get the latest CENTR position from the web site www.centr.org. We present this to the members in Greece but it's been discussed by sub group. What we design here is the top is very light? We have many hanging group or interest groups. there is one for the root server. The RIR is seemed to do a good job but it's good to meet once in a while. It's question here for registries and registar. In general, the registries have duty to consult with local internet community. We should treat this people for valuable inputs. I don't particularly get involved what gtld is involved. The key issues here we spend years to decide who goes into the tents. We make sure that the stakeholders are in the tent. You decide what gonna be decided in the tent. Our view is this icann has no binding policy. By the way we may have the gAC as a fifth leg. We may agree we need 4 people to manage in a group.
The whole point is there is no binding policy. There is not a rush for a seat for constituency there. The creation of new gtld needs to be decided somewhere. Any attempt to do in icann will fail. This is a position from CENTR. |
| 2002-06-24 11:17:05 | AFTLD POSITION ON ICANN REFORM BY Yann Kwok:
Should there any continuation in icann? The concensus is yes. There should be restriction for icann regarding policy management. One country said government should be part of icann process. Regarding cctld board member, they all said yes. LACTLD POSITION Two papers from LACTLD: We review the documents when we draft this documents. We found basic different on the thinking. We found that there are two basics obligation for cctld managers: one is local internet community and one is global. We need some kind of backing when it comes to redelegation and operation effect of cctlds. Basically, the third paragraph: LACTLD .... The four paragraph; we didn't share the redelegation of a cctld be considered exclusively as a local issue. While it may be true that this is an important factor, there exists, without doubt, an interest on the part of the global Internet community to insure an adequate operation of the domain names, including those that are within a cctld. Nigel Roberts: Any comments. We welcome the Names Council representatives. Would you please come to the fronts. |
| 2002-06-24 11:24:47 | Phillip Sheppard, the chair of Names Council: I would like to update every body on NC regarding the blueprints. It was encouraging in many areas in the blueprints. We don't want to duplicate the organization within cc. In terms of other difference, NC comes out favor in term of earlier version of proposals: election of chairman, PSO remaining. They in turn selected half of the board. We mean on the NOnCom roles. We objected the idea of the voting right for the board. We will take comments.
Peter Dengate Thrush: I would like to come back on view of Nomcom roles. What is your view of those roles. It soles function to appoint half or less of the boards. It has no role in function of .... Marilynn Cade: too broard of a role of NomCom. We never consider support of separate group without accountability. We try to be sensitive to people without constitutency to have a voice. Global business community, their involvement and guidance, it's important to guide icann to have a structure that benefits Internet community. I am counting on opportunity to fix those areas that are most concerned. But not the idea of NomCom taking on such a broad role. Willie Black of .uk: Fundamental question that how we justify paying money to join organizaition. Why would we pay a lot to join? It's a fundamental problem about ICANN. Marilynn Cade: We need to have a place to agree on standard and procedure to ensure the users can count on the same kind and it means that we have to pay for it. I am under impression that not all but most of cctld are paying. We feel the money that goes into the funding come from registry themselves to make IcANN stable. |
| 2002-06-24 11:45:03 | Back to Reaction to ICANN proposal:
Taragin: Again it's very disappointed to see this paper comes out 48 hours before this meeting. Peter: I disagree. I think it's good that it comes out. this is a nature of icann to do things. It's tough but we can..... Taragin: I would like to look at the paper before hand. Nigel: Who think who would like to look at time table of this icann proposal? I don't see many people queing up. Are you agree with this? Willie: Please speak out! It's just far too heavyweight for this. Nigel: If any one reading scribe notes, we are welcome. Paul Kane: Jennifer Northover of .nz – In terms of cctld funding for global services. This morning regional ccTLDs have presented their views of the Blueprint – and it is clear that there is recognition they value some services to be made at the global level. Redelegation is one such service. It is too early yet to determine full package of global services. The regional TLDs need time to come to a consensus as to what these services might be and to quantify these. There is a further issue in determining the global services and that is the proposal that only cctlds committed to ICANN policy development are entitled to participation. This needs further consideration to ensure that all ccTLDs can be accommodated. |
| 2002-06-24 12:44:03 | Lunch break from 12: 30 to 14:00 PM |
| 2002-06-24 14:08:34 | Michael Silber presentation on .za current problem is posted at:
20020624.SouthAfrica-za-update.ppt |
| 2002-06-24 14:22:51 | Related documents posted at:
ccSO-2002bucharest.html ccSO-working-with-DNSO-2002accra.html |
| 2002-06-24 14:36:20 | Michael Silber: I don't know to what extent of statement we need as an organization. Persuade your governments to persuade our government to show them we are able to do our job well.
PDT: we are meeting the GAC tomorrow, there is a GAC principle we can praise. Michael Silber: THat would be helpful. |
| 2002-06-24 14:40:43 | The email sent in by Mark Flynn was read but there were no comments. |
| 2002-06-24 14:41:32 | PDT: Turn to back of this paper, until to the page called Apendix 1. (throw it away, don't need it now) We'll just look at principles and some pictures. Turn to the front, get rid of page 1 and 2. You can read them later on but don't need them today.
(PDT's presentation) There are five regions and five regional associations. The regional associations will act as organizers for ccTLDs in the ccSO. They'll sign an agreement with icann as organizers. Individual members and regional associations will sign up in the ccSO. ICANN staff said that they would prefer an SO with more than one level of membership. We'll give them 2 entity of membership, one organization and one individual memberships. We had votes on international council, there will be 5 seats, 3 per region and a chair elected by the council. We could have 4 vps to organize. VP for work; charge of international assembly. Legal and regulatory affairs VP, membership and outreach VP, and Finance and administration VP. The council can elect seats to the board. The secretariat that exists can become the ccSO Secretariat. International assembly: the extended cctld-discuss list for anyone those interested. This is the way I propose and been working with theliaison group. Through this, we can interface with the other constituencies. What we don't want, is a structural provision. We don't want a committee to deal with this. There will be periodic, issues that will arise and we can work on this for awhile and we can work on it. Each time we want an interface with other group, we can deal with it and the problem will be solved. International assembly is an interface with other SO's. |
| 2002-06-24 15:15:58 | BK Kim: A year has passed since the permanent secretariat has been established. I would like to make a brief report.
|
| 2002-06-24 15:33:05 | Sabine Dolderer reports on ICANN Budget Committee. Please see her report at:
http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-15may02.htm Questions from the audience: Sabine Dolderer: I got very late feed back from community but it will be very useful if we can get some feedbacks. |
| 2002-06-24 15:40:20 | Funding to secretariat, DNSO and ICANN:
ICANN Funding - Paul Kane: It may be helpful to send a clear message to iana that cctld wanted to fund iana but it should have more accountability for iana service for cctlds. The number of issues cctld wants are very few. More or less we require immediate response. What we pay for and how much. Other issue for Root server that don't require funding. Do they require funding in the future? PDT: I provide policy to our reps on funding policy. What keeps coming back is the domain names number? Do we have a view on that? What we need is to arm our reps. to discuss? We would split up among ourselves or is it still the same? We should have more fundamental on this? Nigel: We have clear policy that we don't pay under domain names. It's very clear in the past. Sabine: First of all, there is a separation between gtld and cctld. .... The other point is unfair to treat as domain name base. Paul: The beauty of this forum is we can do a straw poll on the direction of where we go. One of the aspect per domain name fee, the economic wealth of this is the ability to pay. Let's assume iana function cost 400,000 usd. Let;s assume cctld fund icann iana 600,000 usd. .................... Is this the straw poll being raised? Maruyama of .jp: I think I have no problem decide the amount of money to pay base on domain name. It's quite reasonable to decide among cctlds. If there is another good measure, then it should be considered. Sabine: in europe, you can see more or less as policy. That is much more to do than domain names base. Patricio: I don't really have problem with formula the portion that cctld has to pay base on the size. This is just the way to decide but I am convinced that cctld charge for domain names. They should not pay for iana service. I don't have a problem either with Paul's. I do have problem with how firm such a committment it really be. But how the fees collect even for DNSO small fees we could not even collect. Paul: In LAC, manay has not charged the name registration. How we will charge these registries? Can we establish more a concept to pay a specific service and leave this to cctld to raise those fund? "Is the cctld constituency willing to commit to an arrangement where cctld will collectively determine the collection mechanism for an agreed cctld contribution to ICANN?" For: 20 Against: 4 Abstrain: 6 This is strictly a straw poll. |
| 2002-06-24 18:11:46 | Questions from the ccTLD constituency regarding ICANN’s Blueprint document
PDT: PDT is going over the APTLD comments on ERC. Bernard Turcotte: The Blueprint talks about how ccs can participate, I believe it is a good time to ask for explicit definitions of “other forms of other participation”. What does ‘other means’ mean? - relevant to ICANN and re delegation issue, as it moved from where it has been the last 3 years, SD: MW: How do we respond to the Board initiating policies? What happens to the ccTLDs who don’t join the ccSO? Will ICANN apply to those the same rules we develop for ourselves? (The ccTLDs who don’t join the ccSO, can they get the same advantages of those joining the ccSO) MW: first paragraph, CNSO is not a elevated form of ccTLD. Signed agreements, full funding support By funding to global organization, are we committed to it? SD: If somebody is not fulfilling whatever makes global policies, can ICANN enforce global policy? PP: “in addition to those ccTLDs that have signed agreements, other ccTLDs will participate” is the step in the right direction. BT: maybe we want to address the issue of ICP-1 that keeps coming up. Maybe we can bring up a question about what IANA is doing what it should be doing. Getting more to SD’s point, the question relative to the blueprint, can be relative to the operation of the IANA function. “interaction” with the gTLd and ccTLD community. PDT: I thought the problem we had been IANA is deliberate. IF that goes away, is the issue what control we are going to have over the staff BT: Will our policy mandate go to the extent of covering the operation of IANA? SD: Having contracts or not is the problem. Violating the stability of the global internet is something we really don’t want. MW: 2 different points. 1. ICP-1; many ccTLD managers say that RFC 1591 and ICP-1 is something completely different. Many say that we have not agreed to ICP-1 as policy, as a rule. The structure has changed because the ICANN Board approved ICP-1 a few weeks ago. It’s an officially approved ICANN board policy. 2. Nominating committee: when I look at all the different stake holders having different seats on the NOmcom, advisory committee in the GNSOà 2to 3 persons but CNSOà 1 person Since overall structures is the SO, it looks a bit weird. Paul Kane; PDT: would like to propose a straw poll If it proves they haven’t gone through the process, who would like to express discontent? Has it gone through the whole process of approving ? EP: 12 Feb, MW: whoever comes to icann/IANA and requests a change, they come back to you and say ‘this is stated in ICP-1’ and you say ‘it’s not in the RFC 1591,’ but they will say ‘this is board approved’ PDT: are there any other board issues? Name of this organization: who prefers ccSO>CNSO EP: personal guessing, it might be related to new TLDs ICANN might open. .eu is not an issue. PDT: there is no heritage in any document about country names.. Chris Disspain: Country name could refer to names within in a country.. BT: question of blueprint; Is there any kind of framework or limit around the policies that can be decided by ICANN? Is there any intention to frame the policy making power? NR: What safeguards are there on the power of the board for top-down policies? Joint workshop with GAC, Grand ballroom B tomorrow. (closed meeting) Meeting adjourn. |
| 2002-06-25 11:15:35 | Root server operation workshop.
Chaired by Yann Kwok: Four presentations today: 1. Jun Marai 2. John Crain of RIPE 3. Bill Manning 4. Kilnam Chon Please download each presentation from the scribe's notes home page. |
| 2002-06-25 12:12:55 | We talk about statistics and we try to put some of our statistics on there.
I encourage people to visit this website: www.root-servers.org. Go to item F. You can see the amount of queries. Basically every root service gets a website. The other set of data available is www.cadea.org, they do a lot of presentations. If you are interested in the actual statistics, I would suggest you invite them to come talk to you. That's all. |
| 2002-06-25 14:46:12 | John Crain is making a presention about improving ccTLD services.
Brief stats on www.iana.org/periodic-reports/ Issues we came across: Difference between parent (root) and child (ccTLD )servers Differences between various secondary servers Servers that weren't answering queries Servers that weren't responding to anything Those still ongoing: ccTLDs with issues on policy ccTLDs with continuing infiguration issues ccTLDs were one or both of the contracts haven't replied The main policy issues is the requirement for zone file transfer Long standing policy of zone data being made available from ccTLDs to IANA - some dispute this is longstanding - some dispute the policy Lessons learnt The DNS really is a mess Making tens of ccTLD's reliant on a single piece of infrastructure is not a good long term practice There is a need to work on best practices of a more operational nature Bill Manning: network time protocol; it would be useful to pick a number and publish something that says , these are the popular name servers, if you are going to pick one, don't pick the one that's full SD: How many dns you can play in a single infrastructure is sthing to be addressed John Crain; putting everything under one company is putting it all under one infrastructure. Herbert Vitzthum: I just wanted to remember that ns.eu.net is not the only one using WB: first, there is a statement, if there are reasons why people still have this in their machines, is the complete kind of functionary of ICANN going to DoC to ask. ICANN should start making changes that we ask. Second, why do you think ICANN has to take on this role of being a policeman? JC: I can't give a view on ICANN view, but i personally think it is for your personal interest. To change sthing in the root zone without checking if the servers are working properly is not a good idea. I feel for you but I think it would be inadvisible of making chagnes on the root. WB: i appreciate your answer. It is an issue of sovereignty. It is a useful service but there is other issue. .at: how many dns are in servers don't help us unless JC: I can comment on that. I think the other things that we've learned, is that the documentation of what goes on and what the procedures are in clear manner is extremely important. the icp has been there for awhile, it's also important that people comment on those things when those things come out. |
| 2002-06-25 15:04:41 | HV: If the ccTLDs want to form a position, ICANN has to listen to that. but everything has to follow procedures.
NR: this highlights what will happen in case of an emergency SD: there was a change in procedure so what i see is a change of practice without announcement. JC: as root server opeator, i can't make changes, because that is not my job. NR: I want to concentrate on what rfc91 and acp1 and any agreement with ICANN. There are two cctlds applied directly and that is Japan And Australia. The rest will have to abind by rfc1591. Who operate their registries under and in support of rfc1591? Look like most people do. Does anybody accept icp-1? No one. |
| 2002-06-25 16:18:12 |
Members of the Committee participated: Alejandro Pisanty, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Nii Quaynor Questions from the ccSO [in formation] to the ERC on ICANN Reform: 1. At page 13, the purpose of NomCom appointments is to balance the representative selection to ensure participants who place the public interest ahead of any particular special interest. What is the nature of the “imbalance” in the ccSO, which is made up of ccTLD managers from all over the world, that NomCom appointees will rectify? 2. If the NomCom is in response to the need for “at large” representation, was it ever recommended that the At Large make appointments throughout the ICANN structure? 3. Are there occasional lapses in language in the Report where g-names are not clearly distinguished from c-names?: At pages 5, paras. 5&6 refer to “market mechanisms to promote… a competitive environment” and “competition in the registration of domain names…” at page 19 a per domain name levy is calculated of $0.25. 4. Why should the ccSO not separately incorporate, nor function additionally as a trade association? 5. Its hard to sustain an argument that failure to reach a cctld contract, a root server agreement, or an RIR contract is due to burdensome process. 6. At page 10, reference is made to ICP-1, which has not been adopted by the ICANN policy development process. (It appears that its name was approved in the February Board meeting, but not the content). Is there any intention to adopt this as an ICANN policy? 7. At page 10 of the Blueprint, commitment to the the ICANN policy development (and membership of the ccSO) is evidenced by “other means” What is intended by this wording.? 8. What protection is available to protect our Local Internet Communities, and the stability of the internet, from Board-developed policies, such as the systematic refusal to update the IANA database, without a contract? 9. Does our ability to control the development of policy extend to control of the staff, when such as the above occurs? 10. When you look at the proposed structure of ICANN with the ASO, ccSO and the GNSO and set this in relation to the structure of the NomCom, the ccSo has only one representative there, while the GNSO for example has 7 representatives. Why is this so? 11. Does the global policy development in the proposed ICANN structure cover the IANA services including the issue of redelegation? |
| 2002-06-25 16:48:24 | Alejandro Pisanty:
At Large, “atlarge”, the need for representation is needed all over the ICANN procedure. We perceive this being managed in different ways. We realize many other places an invitation to the users will be very important. it’s good not to confuse g names and c names. Agreements have not been discussed in details. 6. for all practical informal purposes, icp 1 has been adopted. 7. it’s not the ccSO, it’s the CNSO. We are leaving open the possibilities of many different ways. To put aside a moment the concerns that iCNAN is trying to restrict from ccTLDs to do things. We have to have some bilateral agreement. Some sort of binding participation. That’s the basic principle. 9. all sorts of remedies are available 10. it was agreed for a long to time to identify at least 7 different interests. It’s not a promise but cnso seem to come as a block. 11. there is a definition of a ‘policy’. Decision that does not abide to single case, general cases à board level policy MT: I have one general question. How doyou describe a procedure which came out in 20 June and is recommnended to be voted on the board by 28 as an open bottom up procedure. AP: this document is based on several months of work. We are trying to show that we are building icann in a decisive notice. Notices has been started in april, report from the icann was posted on 31 may and that should have been the most important document for you. The blueprint is basically the same paper as that one. Please check where your comments have been considered. (in the blue print) MT: it had a new information. NQ: despite the short time, we have managed to produce numeral documents. We’ll try to AP: what do you call a process in an association BT: in relation to the Blueprint, the iana function. What is your thinking to relative to c/g TLDS being able to create policy so that the iana is applied to us more directly. AP: we have been very explicit in diplomatic language at the end of this paper. We are calling for a better definition; we are searching for the bottom up process. The politics of delay have to play a much lesser role. (needs restricted time limits) BT: it is expected that this group of ccTLDs will be able to bring up iana related policies in a bottom up process. AP: yes SD: A group of people want to respond to your proposals. CENTR wants to come into a common understanding. ERC: Mission statement was the one of the first documents published. Number of comments has been taken into account but not all of them. Along the ICP one, we run int ot he difficulty of defining policy. Number of the issues with the iana function would not define as a real policy but more as operational .. From the Board respective, ICP 1 is a practical translation of rfc 1591. we have better defined AP: there were several positions of CENTR, we addressed it point by point but did not agree with it point by point. The basic point of disagreement, balance of local responsibility and it’s administrators. We have been explicitly that there is a global dimension and global policy dimension in the work of ccTLDs. It does not fall under the local law and local government. Key point: at least in latin America, we have several examples where ccTLDs are to be effected irrational acts by governments (or others), a system of ICANN has serious impact in that area. There is no objection for cc Trade association. But the global impact of ccTLDs within ICANN is enormous. Let’s build this strong ICANN together… SD: within the ccTLD consituenc, we are facing the same questions but the board will not be able to solve our problems. It’s not something the board can or should resolve. We should try to find a solution that can fit all of us. ERC: what I understand from the blue print, is next to g-names, addresses, we’ve been incorporated cNSO and we’ve noted that in the world there are cc registries who want to participate and benefit from it. There are differences in the different regions in the world. There are number of elements as the regional registry in the global dimension. 2 step in the board from CNSO is a great step forward. I really hope on this basis, you can find astructure to set up the so and participate in the ICANN process. Paul Kane; you made a reference to ICP 1 , we’ve recently learned that there is ICP2,3. those are policies, but unfortunately it’s not bottom up procedure. Policy development should happen exclusively within the interest group. The board recognizing the interest group is the party where the policy is developed, and the board’s role is to over look to see if the actual interested parties were involved. The responsibilities of the board should be defined. ERC: we are in complete agreement, it’s a bottom up process therefore, we feel it’s important that there is a CNSO. PK: cultural exchange and information exchange is important part of ICANN. ccS are willing to fund their parts. We recognize that there are global parts that we as a community should be contributing to. PDT: there were narrow range of issues that are global, we will deal with it. It’s the reason we wanted to have an SO. BT: because of the way the current ICP has been, we are looking for an opportunity to deal with this. Please give us pointers on how to deal with MW: it comes back to the structural question. The nom com will have one participant form the ccTLDs, while it will have 6 and 7 from the gNSO. gNSO has identified several interest groups and are there for NomCom? Then all these interest group would apply for a SO. As the ccSO is representative of the ccTLD managers, ccTLD managers represetnt the LIC, they are representing all the Intellectual property. ERC: You do not find 6-7 gNSO, and only one in the cNSO. There is one rep from g registries, g registrars, and c registries and from other interest groups. So the interest groups identified in the committee are not necessarily SO, but the society at large, including registries and registrars who have interest in ICANN. AP: the only thing that is strictly g is the registries and the registrars. RIRs, ISPs, are different. You can be sure that you have consumer groups from one part of the world and other. you’ll have people doing small businesse with the ccTLD groups and etc. Everything else is both g/c NSO. WB: what do you see as the power of the board? It’s critical to me to define what the board decides will be binding. ERC: it’s binding in as far as the effective parties want to be bound, either voluntarily or contract. What’s the power of IETF, ITU? Sometimes it’s binding by contract and sometimes it’s binding by authority. ICANN should have numbers of MoUs, contracts. PDT: timeline for implementing this, to the extension of the MoU. SD: the board has to decide that there are other possibilities Paul Kane: I think it be a fact that it will be bottom up. If the board powers are limited as you say, that’s a very big step forward. Thank you for that. |
| 2002-06-25 19:09:18 | Bernard Turcotte ask the audience "What we want from IANA" and here is the list that most are in favor.
ccTLD wish list for IANA. 1. IANA establish and follow different processes for different types of IANA database update requests made by ccTLD managers with a view to simplify and expedite the submission and processing of simple requests (i.e. change of phone number). 2. IANA should automatically process all change requests to the IANA database as properly requested by the ccTLD manager which are not related to changing the ccTLD manager. 3. IANA and ccTLD should agree on authentication method for changing the IANA database. All are in favor. 4. IANA will maintain a formal change control system to track all changes to the IANA database with a comprehensive and accurate audit trail that is available to ccTLD managers. All are in favor. |