World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names

ccTLD ICANN Meetings in Montréal

ccTLD ICANN Meetings in Montréal, Canada, 22-25 June 2003

1. Agenda: 20030622.Montreal-agenda.html
2. Documents: 20030622.Montreal-documents.html
3. Summary: 20030622.Montreal-summary.html
4. Communiqué: 20030625.ccTLDmontreal-communique.html
5. AFTLD Communiqué: 20030625.ccTLDmontreal-AFTLD-communique.html
6. LACTLD Communiqué: 20030625.ccTLDmontreal-LACTLD-communique.html

Day 2 : Monday, 23 June 2003

ICANN SCHEDULE
*       GNSO Constituency Meetings (various times, 9:00 - 20:00)
*       At-Large Advisory Committee (14:00 - 16:00)
*       Governmental Advisory Committee Meeting (08:30 - 18:00)

09:00 - 10:30 DNS Security (session leaders: Oscar Robles, Chuck Gomes)

10:30 - 11:00 Morning break

11:00 - 12:00 ccTLD session with GAC ccTLD WG (session leaders: Willie Black, Luis Pablo Hinojosa Azaolas)

12:00 - 13:00 IANA: resolving contested ccTLD delegations (session leader: Elisabeth Porteneuve, presentation by Richard Francis)

13:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 16:00 CC meeting with Chair of ICANN Board and President (session leader: Bernard Turcotte)

16:00 - 16:30 Afternoon break

16:30 - 18:00 Open forum ccTLD with GNSO/ASO/ALAC... (session leaders: Young-Eum Lee, Peter Dengate Trush)

* GNSO Constituency Meetings (various times, 9:00 - 20:00)

• - attended GNSO council breakfast

09:00 - 10:30 DNS Security (session leaders: Oscar Robles, Chuck Gomes)

11:00 - 12:00 ccTLD session with GAC ccTLD WG (session leaders: Willie Black, Luis Pablo Hinojosa Azaolas)

• Mexican Representative Present:
  • - GAC has created 6 working groups
  • - ccTLD WG: 23 GAC representatives, Liaison with the ccTLD community
  • - formation of ccNSO is an issue.

• Issues within GAC with regard to ERC recommendations presented:
  • - Burden of proof: Global vs. Local
  • - Scope-framework
  • - Binding nature of the policies
  • - Re-delegation
  • - Membership (IANA database)

• Willie Black:
  • - Binding nature of the policies is problematic.
  • - There is agreement that scope includes "Control and management of the IANA database"
  • - There are disagreements. E.g., IDN should not be included. Same about Whois and DRP. This should be best practices. These should not be binding policy decisions.
  • - ICANN board should deal with IANA management functions. There are difficulties about most other topics.

• Hilde Thunem: Promising to see this list. This list is what I've seen when I was reading through the bylaws as well. Esp. global vs. local, scope, defining the initial scope, etc. Also find it promising when I read the GAC comments to the ERC when they say that the central issue the IANA functions and some Name Server functions. We can all agree that the IANA function is global. We should use this as starting point.

• (Marcel ?) Switzerland: Don't understand the "burden of proof" and the "binding nature of policies" ccNSO can make recommendations, not binding policies. It is not in the interest of any local policies. The gTLDs do not have any LICs. We as ccTLDs have LICs that we are responsible to. The LIC within gTLDs are within ICANN.

• Black: The lack of people at the microphone indicates "screaming agreement" among people in this room. It seems that the ERC tried to "compromise" which is a lose-lose situation. Consensus means that you start with a blank sheet. What is it we need? IANA functions. Funding. That's where the bylaws should start. It should say that the scope includes only IANA functions. People who would like to take it further can come and argue. We've gone too far to the compromise side and forgot about consensus.

• (?): GAC and ccTLDs seem to agree on most things. The starting point is that we all want a ccNSO. If the bylaws are good, ccTLDs would want to join. The GAC would like to see ccTLDs joining, and would like to try to help get ccNSO bylaws which are "good". I agree on the ccNSO scope. The proposed matrix and the Annex doesn't describe the scope, only the matrix. It doesn't define. We would welcome better definition. We would agree that IANA function is in. There is a second function, the name server function. Some are arguing that there are some issues that "may be" global issues. This is the area where the "burden of proof" should be addressed. There are some issues in the "second level" of the matrix that would need to be needing "burden of proof" as to whether they are global.

• Paul Kane: We would like to be involved in the IANA function. If you fill in "form A," you will get the specificity that we need. If we start with the premise that everything is local, and then contest this within ccNSO, I would be prefer this. Also, instead of having the wording, "binding," I would like to see "best practice." If policies make sense to individual ccTLDs, they can follow it. Peer pressure has strong implications. We are in the service industry. We need to service our LIC. We need to keep things local and not have "threatening agreements."

• Peter DT: What we have is the fact that instead of determining that everything is local, we have the right to determine whether everything is local or not. Question: Would the GAC be happier if the council would take upon it the "burden of proof"? Or would you be happy if the GAC would be able to do it? Or if it is more formally incorporated into the bylaws?

• Willie Black: I don't see the need for the council to have to determine so many things. The council should be concerned with producing documents, making sure that the members get it, and maybe sometime determining whether most people agree.

• Chris Disspain: There is a risk of preempting the amendments, which will be coming out within an hour or so. The "issue report" performs the role of the "burden of proof"

• Willie Black: You might not be able to determine if an issue is local or global before you get to the details, which would make determining whether an issue report is local or global difficult.

• Chris Disspain: Yes, but you can start on assumptions, and then determine.

• Paul Kane: What is the GAC's feeling about the meaning of "binding?"

• Luis Pablo(GAC): The ccNSO bylaws deals with how a corporation is established in order for coordination is to happen. Question to the ccTLD community: Are you intending for this corporation to happen or not?

• Sabine Dolderer: It's important if you're running a ccTLD and are subjecting yourself to a "binding" policy. There are still many major problems. E.g., if you have 66% agreeing to implement, and only 10 are voting, and expect 240 ccTLDs to implement, then it will be a problem. If it is "binding" policy, I can't agree to it. It should be a very inclusive discussion forum. If there is a framework that is "inclusive," a lot of us will go with it. Otherwise, not.

• Paul Kane: Real world standards. Technical standards of the Internet are proposed by IETF. The whole concept of an inclusive "arena" like the IETF makes common sense. Many people will use it if you make common sense. In the ccTLD community we similarly have this today. We exchange ideas. When it comes to policies, I would like to propose the concept of best practice. If it is "best practice," it can be more dynamic, and then can be more inclusive.

• Michael(South Africa): The starting point of this should be the community of the ccTLDs. It is for the ccTLDs to identify what they would need in order to "do business." You need stability in order to "do business." The position of the ccNSO is to identify those areas where everyone has to accept a common operating starting point. I don't agree with words like "binding." I agree with "best practice" because everyone can share some sort of "best practice" The ccNSO needs to be inclusive. I agree with Willie that you want to reach "consensus." However, sometimes you can't reach "consensus." Then you need to identify areas where it is problematic for consensus. If you have consensus and have a lot of support, then you have a strong voice within ICANN.

• Willie Black: What "damage" can a cc do to harm the Internet?

• Future direction of GAC?:

• Luis Pablo: A good beginning of communication between GAC and ccTLDs. Many things may arise afterwards. Please use the GAC liaison. Understand that we are very open to continuing this dialogue. The most urgent issue this time was the ccNSO bylaws. We are not in disagreement.

• Paul Kane: Would like to thank GAC. Many of us welcome the liaison role. In Rio it was suggested that there be a ccTLD liaison within the GAC.

• Luis Pablo: Haven't reached agreement within GAC.

• GAC liaison is departing. Would like to say goodbye.:

• Willie Black: Would like to congratulate you for having "thick skin." One of our members have been extremely vocal about the fact that there is no ccTLD liaison within GAC.

• Departing GAC liaison: I understand your position. Hope more understanding between us.

12:00 - 13:00 IANA: resolving contested ccTLD delegations (session leader: Elisabeth Porteneuve, presentation by Richard Francis)

Elizabeth Porteneuve poses Questions

• - What is the meaning of a challenged /contested delegation?
• - Who may make a challenge?
• - Under which circumstances?
• - Who receives challenges?
• - How do we know about challenges?
• - How can the specific cc-related LICs and global internet communities know about challenges?
• - We still don't know what challenged/contested delegations mean.
• - The best practice we have of CENTR and of the ccTLD group, is that we insist that as much as possible, these issues should be dealt with at a local level.

Richard Francis presentation

• - Preliminary remarks to start a debate within the ccTLD community where the IANA staff has not come up with a solution.

• current situation.
  • - Countries in Africa and other European countries.
  • - IANA database remains unchanged.
  • - In the newly reformed ICANN 2.0, I would like to propose that it should be regulated by something like RFC 1591. Start with consensus. With a significant amount of communication coming from LIC, IANA should ask the LIC to come up with a consensus based on RFC 1591 process.
  • - If there is no consensus.
  • - Conciliation Phase: Can we come up with a neutral party?
  • - If there is still no resolution after 2 years, there will be frustration.
  • - IANA doesn't reveal the cc's in the conciliation phase. (shouldn't reveal this)

• Currently,
  • - There are many cc's that would sign up to the fact that redelegation should occur within LICs.
  • - In cases where there is no agreement...

• Proposal
  • - The contract between ccTLDs and ICANN would establish a mechanism for doing this.
  • - The head of the ccTLD secretariat and the head of the GAC secretariat should jointly deal with this. (IANA dispute rules)
  • - This would go through the ccNSO PDP.
  • - cc's should think about this between now and Carthage.
  • - The danger is that GAC will take on a stronger role.

• Peter DT: Put a lot more "flesh" on a vague issue. 3 different options suggested for .nz. The legal staff of ICANN would be delighted if we would take this off their backs. We've thought of a variety of possible situations. I don't think that a straightforward arbitration is the solution. But let's get started on something.

• Richard Francis: The IANA staff in recent times have done similar analyses and have come up with 13 different scenarios.

• Oscar Robles: Governments want to be certain that the ccTLD managers perform properly, and that this mechanism would

• Paul Kane: This is a positive step. The road is long. However, one of the result of a dispute resolution is that you will find that the number of contested delegations will rise substantially. When you go down this path, you have to be certain that this does not create more problems than the ones that exist today. I would like to suggest that the model you have really define the core elements. "operator within country," "operator outside the country," etc. GAC and ICANN would welcome us thinking about this. The risk of this, however, is that the number of contested delegations may rise.

• Richard Francis: The existing GAC principles cannot apply to the many ccTLDs in most of Europe and in many other regions. GAC called for a proposed revision to the guidelines. It seems that it is likely to say, "we need to scrap 1591, and ICP-1 and place the redelegation issue to the governments. Governments have a primary role in the internet community. It is in the natural interest of the countries to take a primary role in this." It is very likely that we will see GAC principles 2.0 which say things that is very much as "divorced from realities" as GAC principles 1.0. We need to talk about this, and be ready to say that we've thought about this. We will be talking about the new GAC principles between now and Carthage.

• Agai(? Nigeria): Introduce a scenario. Suppose you have an individual as an administrator for a number of years that has not been able to bring the technical ability of the registry, and because of this, many people in the country cannot register. As a result, the government makes a law giving license to an entity that has the ability. What will ICANN do in these cases? This should be taken into consideration.

• Richard Francis: The GAC is likely to come up with a suggestion that redelegation issues should be dealt with based on GAC principles 2.0, which would supercede 1591 and ICP-1. In a new document, the fact that an incumbent manager for one reason or another has failed to create an "effective" registry, we can say that it can be dealt with by 1591. It could be said that 1591 is too technically driven, and not legally driven enough.

• Elizabeth Porteneuve: I believe that we should address this issue and take a lead in thinking about this. I feel that very often we only respond to other's papers. I hope we are able to come up with "our document." The fact that there may be 20, 30, ccTLD managers that are bad, should be dealt with by us.

• Richard Francis: What next? CENTR has an IANA WG.

14:00 - 16:00 CC meeting with Chair of ICANN Board and President (session leader: Bernard Turcotte)

Meeting with ERC and ICANN Board

• - Alejandro Pisante
• - Hans Kraijbrink
• - Paul Toomey

Drafting communique

• - Chris Disspain
• - Peter DT
• - Bart Boswinkle

• Willie Black:
  • - I can't say anything until I speak to my board

• Peter DT:
  • - You've been saying this before.
  • - This is an indication of what people here think

• Willie Black:
  • - I can't make a final decision
  • - I will be unable to endorse a cc position at this meeting

• Dotty De Blanc:
  • - We should discuss it now

• Willie Black:
  • - I am unable to say that I support that the bylaws be passed.
  • - Knowing that my board discussed it last week, and were very unhappy with it, I know that I will be unable to make a decision.

• Patricio Poblete:
  • - Probably none of us are able to make such a decision.
  • - But we are here to work. We should be able to suggest changes. This is not a committment, but it may be helpful.

• Peter DT:
  • - What do you think should be the outcome of this meeting?

• Sabine Dolderer:
  • - I am able but unable to make the decision.
  • - I will tell you what you are going to tel your board.

• Hilde Thunem:
  • - Given that the ERC is trying to do some work
  • - But for us to be able to make a final statement on this, we need more time.
  • - We will gladly come up with input, but I think we need more time than this meeting.

• Peter DT:
  • - You would say that some kind of a statement to the ERC would be possible?

• Hilde Thunem: Something that says we recognize the work of the ERC, but that there are some points

• Willie Black: They are going to make a decision in two days time. It cannot just be an academic exercise. The statement that we make at this meeting will be taken by the board as a sign to go ahead or not. This is fundamental.

• Maureen: Maybe we should just take the substance. Maybe we need to look at what's in it.

• Patricio: Would like to point out that it makes no sense to say that what we're doing here is to get our registry to sign or not. What we are trying to do is to work, participate in the process

• Bill Semech: I agree with Patricio's point of view.

• Peter DT: Show of hands. Who thinks that we should send a statement to the ERC?

• South Africa: The board is going to go ahead anyway. Our exercise is to make input.

• Bart Boswinkle explanation of changes in scope:
  • - If you look through it, you can see three changes. First one is the change in the annex itself, Section 1. The description of the ccNSO itself.
  • - What the ccNSO is supposed to do is now moved to Section 1 of the Bylaws of Article 9. The second change is in Section 6, paragraph 3, page 9.
  • - There you see that it's not just a change of language, but in principle there will be a delineation of the scope itself with regard to the PDP role.
  • - This defers to Annex C, which starts at page 25. There you can see that the lines were changed were moved up.
  • - It is the paragraph on what was the contentious issue yesterday. It is language with regard to the framework. The most contentious bit was "this example is not intended to be authoritative." It became clear yesterday that in order to get the ccNSO started you need initial matters of substance. The first PDP will not be of the definition of the scope, but things related with the IANA database. The next one is page 28, that cc's don't interfere with matters related with gTLDs. What it tries to capture is that initially, the scope of the ccNSO is limited to the policies related with the IANA database and some name server function.

• Peter DT: Seems to me that the important thing is in the paragraph on page 27. My problem here is that I still don't know the limits.

• Bart Boswinkle: There are safeguards

• Sabine D: I still have problems because there is the possibility of widening the scoel. There is more in the scope which may be binding.

• Chris Disspain: Are you saying that you want a situation that cannot be widened?

• Bart: When we devised the scheme was to ensure interoperability.

• Willlie Black: What was Peter's summary? Why wasn't it clearly outlined?

• Bart: if you have a list, it can be a problem.

• Willie Black: What is the Executive Role?

• Peter DT: Seems to be that with regard to scope, we got what we wanted in Rio.

• Willie: Whose interpretation with regard to interoperability? IDNs interoperable?

• Peter DT: Interoperability but we want to be able to determine

• Lim, Chun-Sai (sg): title of Annex C should be Scope, not Framework of the scope.

• Peter DT: Limitation may not be a good idea.

• Sabine Dolderer: Change of the scope. Then it becomes something that becomes binding to the members of the ccNSO. Binding to the members or is it just a recommendation?

• Bart: But you still have the exemptions. If the scope would change so much, you still have the exemption.

• Sabine Dolderer: I don't think it is a good idea to have the possibility to change the scope. If there is change, you can change the bylaws.

• Bernard Turcott: Sabine's point - no changes to scope? Or changes to scope with super-majority.

• Chris Disspain: Question - Vote of the super-majority of the members would not be able to change the scope? A super-majority of the members, having gone through the PDP, would be able to change the scope? Are we arguing about the voting mechanism which would enable change in scope?

• Hilde Thunem: I agree with Peter that we are able to change the scope. I understand Sabine's concerns also. But there are things that we have done in the past that I would like changed. Stronger mechanisms for changing scope needed.

• Peter DT: Matter of trust. If your colleagues agree that changes should be made, they can do it.

• Hilde Thunem: I would like to have a minimum majority for us to change the scope.

• Chris Disspain: But you also have the opportunity to exempt yourself. There is nothing in these bylaws at all about expelling members not following policy.

• Hilde Thunem: I would like to be able to say yes to a ccNSO. I want enough safeguards to be there. So that as many as possible may join.

• Willie Black: I agree with Sabine with regard to limiting scope. Also would like to support a minimum number argument.

• Sabine Dolderer: Burden of proof concept - I like this. This has to be done at a global level, not a local level.

• Patricio Poblete: Question about changing a scope. What would be the number?

• Peter DT: PDP process. 6 members of council, 10 members, 66% for recommendation.

• Patricio Poblete: There is a super-majority, of the members voting.

• Stephan: Quick remark, Patricio. It's not that clear. Another way to change scope would be by the board. Section 6. The board has the authority to change the bylaws. Want to make clear that legally, technically, it is possible. I wouldn't rely too much on GAC for that. If people feel uncomfortable that the board can change it any time, and the board will look at this in two years time, perhaps there is an additional safeguard which says that this section on scope can only be amended if...

• Chris Disspain: That is the case with any board.

• Hilde Thunem: Why don't we put the scope within the ccNSO scope? Then it must go through PDP.

Burden of Proof Issue

• Chris: Creation of an issue report extended to include "and initiation and threshold" PDP initiation with 10 members.

• Sabine Dolderer: Burden of proof has to be that it has to be done locally.

• Peter DT: Let's look at the other side of this, things that haven't been done. The nominating committee, quorum, etc.

Day 2 : Monday, 23 June 2003, Afternoon session

16:00 - 16:30 Afternoon break

16:30 - 18:00 Open forum ccTLD with GNSO/ASO/ALAC... (session leaders: Young-Eum Lee, Peter Dengate Trush)

Milton Mueller presentation

• - GNSO consists of non-commercial registrations that have registered under country codes.
• - Should non-commercial registrations under cc's be included in the GNSO?
• - Nothing that happens in the GNSO will affect ccNSO.
• - Suggest that we maintain the status quo for two years, and then afterwards, make them ineligible.

Cambodian Non-Commercial Representative presentation, Norbert Klein

• - Cambodian organization.
• - Cambodia has not shown any interest.
• - I am currently working in Cambodian non-commercial organization.
• - In two years time there would be no place for us to have voice.
• - We would like to have some mechanism

• Peter DT: How can we help with GNSO membership qualifications? Exemptions within GNSO is a possible option.

• Cambodian presenter: I would like for us to have formal membership.

• Patricio: Question. Non-commercial organizations such as your interested in participating in GNSO? Why don't you register under a gTLD?

• Cambodian presenter: We want to maintain our registration as an org.kh organization.

• Peter DT: The answer to your question would be, that there is currently no constituency that would be able to deal with your situation. What we might be able to do is look into outreach.

• Bernard Turcott: One of the things that we've worked hard is to make sure that we are following the principles of 1591, which makes us responsible to our LIC.

Mike Hiltzer, IPC

• Description of ISP recommendations to ERC about our SO. ISP has been the only one that has been supportive of our SO.

• Mike: The IPC since stockholm has been supportive of the ccNSO. Look forward to wrking with you. This means having some type of mechanism for input. We have asked for seats in the nom com. We have issues in ccTLD, as well as gTLD space. Whois accuracy. I understand that you may deviate from UDRP.

• Peter DT: Would like to explain why formal participation is not desirable. ccNSO scope is limited to narrowly defined items related with what goes on in the IANA database. You are concerned with matters higher up. We would like to work with you where necessary, but this is not within the scope of the ccNSO.

• Mike: Pleased to hear that the ccNSO will be working on a best parctices. The area where we have some disagreement is where Policy implications in gTLD namespace and ccTLD namespace. If direct input is not possible, we still hold that ccTLDs should be handling matters that are related with policy decisions.

• ??: At some point in history we have determined that ICANN's mission is very narrow. Nevertheless, there are policy implications. ccTLDs are becoming increasingly important.

At Large Advisory Committee report

• - Wendy Seltzer, Esther Dyson, Izumi Aizu introduced.
• - New Bylaws created ALAGroups throughout the world.
• - IEEE, Internet Professionals, ISOC, etc., included. Participation of internet users at the local level is the concern.
• - ALAC: composed of five members chosen by the regions.
• - Minimum criteria for At Large structures, MoU with ICANN, proposed application for inclusion in the At Large structure, etc.
• - With board's approval, we will go ahead with this. We would also like ccTLD's support.

• Peter DT: The ccTLD ad com is a deliberately lightweight group. The more productive activity goes on within regional organization. The narrow focus of ICANN as of it stands now is to handle the one database in California. Members of ad com, ccTLD, are invited.

• Dotty Sparks: How do you reach the members of your constituency? Seems like a daunting task.

• Esther Dyson: We go through the registrars. Registrars are an ally. A practical approach.

Tony Holmes (ISP Constituency)

• - Should be aware that ISPs have supported a ccNSO.
• - We now understand some of the issues that have caused problems.
• - Very much aware of the fact that a problem in the relationship between ICANN and cc is not good for anyone.
• - We always recognize that there always needs to be local issues.
• - Hope that tomorrow we'll come up with something better.

• Peter DT: Thank the ISP for the continued support. Do you have a list of things that you would like to work with us about?

• Tony: Yes. Would like to start when we are able to. We'll wait until you open the door.

Marily Cade - Business Constituency

• - Happy that wer are at this stage now.
• - Business perceived that the cc's leaving DNSO as a great loss.
• - Formation of a separate SO was good.
• - Would like to work with the ccNSO.
• - As business, we are dependent on cc's for registration. We think of ourselves as customers of the ccTLDs.
• - We have a dependence on interoperability and inter-resolvability.
• - Huge amount of work has gone into trying to reach an agreement.
• - We continue to support you. Still some obstacles, but think we can overcome it.
• - Over time, the business constituency would like to sit with cc's to talk about issues.
• - Discussions about UDRP, Whois, etc., would be desirable.

• Peter DT: Thank you for the support.