Kilnam Chon reported that an interim committee had been formed in June to administer the business of the constituency and that it consisted of himself for the AP region, Dennis Jennings for Europe, Oscar Robles for LACTLD, Nii Quaynor for Africa. With no formal establishment of a North American constituency, Rob Hall of Canada, a founder of wwTLD, with input also from Peter de Blanc of US Virgin Isles. As agreed in Berlin ccTLD groups of more than 10 can be represented and currently, Antony van Couvering represents IATLD group.
They meet by teleconference every few weeks (more when the ccTLD elections
in progress) and recognise that more needs to be done towards openness
(publishing agendas in advance and providing opportunity for all to listen
The interim Adcom was set up to get elections in place and has no formal mandate. This will need to be addressed and it is for each region/group to develop a process acceptable to the region
2. Elections for DNSO members of the ICANN Board
ccTLD Names Council members, Dennis Jennings Patricio Poblete and Nigel
Roberts, reported and took questions on the recent Election of ICANN board
members from the DNSO.
Dennis Jennings related that the recent elections were carried out in a convention style electing individually a member for a 3-year, a two-year and a one-year term of office.
To be elected you had to have 10 of the 19 possible votes. Votes communicated by phone or email to the DNS Secretariat and it was an ordeal for DNSO secretariat and for the NC members involved in voting. The full voting details and results will published later today after confirmation from ICANN received that they have been accepted by ICANN. Elisabeth Porteneuve, DNSO secretariat confirmed that she awaits an email of confirmation but should be received within the next few hours after which she can make public the voting details.
The NC have forwarded the Names of the 3 winning Candidates requesting ratification by ICANN as the DNSO board members:
Alejandro Pisanty (3 years)
Amadeu Abril i Abril (2 years)
Jonathan Cohen (1 year)
Dennis said the system used allowed for horse-trading and the negotiating was intense allowing minority groups to control the voting to some extent. Dennis and Nigel Roberts had pushed for a PR system.
Nigel added that the election process was abysmal and costly in terms of lost working time and international phone calls. The largest minority was able to control each and every separate election rather than all placing their preferences down on paper and counting up the three most popular. He felt there were mistakes in the process but no reflection on Elisabeth who worked very hard without the benefit of professional help.
Patricio advised that it was long and tiring and that even with the system, better results could have been achieved for which he acknowledged self-criticism but also criticism of the whole constituency. The ccTLD constituency did not focus on whom it wished to elect in advance as other constituencies did.
Willie Black pointed out that other constituencies are smaller and it is easier to get consensus and suggested that maybe we should have had a pre election poll.
The NC representatives were then asked to report on their own voting. Dennis reported that his initial preferences were, Stefano Trumpy, Peter Dengate Thrush and Nii Quaynor When it became clear that ST and PDT could not be elected in the first election he was persuaded to voted for Alejandro on the basis that there would be some reciprocal voting for his choice of Peter Dengate Thrush in the second election. In the second election he focused on PDT and again in the third election when it became clear that ST could not win.
Nigel Roberts decided at the outset to select the person most likely to be elected who would also represent us. That was Peter Dengate Thrush. He felt you keep voting for them until they are out. PDT was his choice throughout until it was seen that he could not be elected.
Patricio Poblete reported that in the first election he supported Alejandro Pisanty as a candidate who was close to ccTLD issues but also from Latin America as that region had no board representation He did a deal with Don Telage to get him to vote for Alejandro in the first election on the basis that he would vote for Don in the 2nd election. He also felt there was strong support for Amadeu and he eventually voted for him in the second round having ensured from Amadeu that he would not support measures, which affected ccTLDs. Third round he asked the ccTLD list and the result was Nii Quaynor so he wrote to the other ccTLD NC reps to ask their support. Nii did not get many votes and the ccTLD NC members did not so Nii was out. He did not feel confident about PDT so he did abstained from that.
Antony van couvering asked all the candidates what they accomplished for ccTLDs in their voting and 'horse trading'. Patricio said he was keen for Alejandro as he is close to LA ccTLDS. When he went to vote for Stefano Trumpy in the second election there was no support for him. Dennis felt his vote for Alejandro was not reciprocated. He added that board members are not representing constituencies but all and he had voted for people who would represent the DNSO
Rob Hall challenged Patricio that he voted for his region above the region and took Dennis to task for the same reason (consulting CENTR but not the larger community)
Patricio responded that he knew Alejandro was a strong candidate and close to ccTLD interests but geographical diversity was required and there were no Latin Americans on the board.
Dennis responded that he had read the global ccTLD mailing list input as well as CENTR input. And also took input from the candidates themselves to satisfy himself on their merits.
Bill Semich stated that we were faced with a rush election and had no time to
create processes for consultation with the constituency. Given the structure
and the way the horse-trading went on we got the best under the circumstances
but the circumstance were bad.
Dennis reminded that he pushed strongly in Santiago for a postponement of the elections and if they had to have elections then for one year only.
Patrick O'Brien said he was disappointed that we did not get the result for ccTLDs and we need to look at our own processes
Willie Black would have been hard pushed to know who the preferred
the constituency would be and even CENTR had no consensus. He was concerned
that the whole ICANN process is broken with just 3 seats for 5 regions and 7
constituencies when the board has 9 seats to be elected by some nebulous
process yet to be decided (The At Large board members)
He pointed out that it is usual in business that those funding an organisation get a proportional number of board seats. He questioned if ccTLD should want to be on the board of ICANN or be a strong organisation from the outside. He recommended that the meeting not be hard on the NC members to fix for future elections or find an alternative for ccTLDs. Jim Higgins pointed out that there are 241 ccTLDs with no representation on the ICANN board and asked what should be done about it.
Antony van Couvering asked the three NC representatives who are our friends on
the Names Council.
Nigel said the NC was polarised and all agreed that ccTLDs had no particular friend or enemies.
Patricio added that it is hard to say they do not have enough experience to know how individuals will vote on various policy issues. Essential that ccTLDs all get involved in the DNSO WGs and cannot let others do the work then complain about the results.
Willie had another problem with the NC. There is a meeting on Wednesday but what are the issues on the table for this week. Have proposed issues and resolutions been published in advance to allow debate and inform the representatives of opinions and how to vote?
Patrick O'Brien felt it all highlighted that we need a proper structure for consultation within the constituency.
Dennis advised that appointment of DNSO GA and NC Chair, procedures funding DNSO and WG reports were some of the key items on the agenda. CTLD input on DNSO/NC chair to be discussed later. (It is the process for appointing the chair that is on the agenda rather than the elections)
Bill Semich asked if is it the intention at this time to take any action of WG reports and forwarding to the ICANN Board but the NC representatives did not think so.
Don Telage of NSI said gTLDs and ccTLDs have a lot in common and needed to cooperate. The situation now is that we have no TLDs representation on the ICANN board and we are the stakeholders.
3. CCTLD NC members
Peter de Blanc reminded the meeting that the results of the ccTLD elections for Names Council representatives had not been accepted by ICANN as two had been elected from the same region. The second of those, Nigel Roberts was currently on a temporary waiver granted by ICANN until 15/1/2000 to allow for a new candidate to be found from a region other than that of the original selection. Fay reported Electoral Reform Society's that it would be deeply flawed to recount the original ballot but removing Nigel's votes and transferring preferences as had, the electorate known, they may have voted entirely different. The alternatives are to hold a by-election for one seat or to full elections for all seats.
In answer to the question of why is it Nigel who is on a waiver, it was
reported that he was the second person elected from the European region and so
is the subject of the waiver.
(Under ICANN rules, once Dennis was elected, any remaining European candidates should have been removed) Dennis felt we now have to address this as a constituency issue and we need to decide if this is high priority to the constituency. ERBS agreed that a geographical diversity drop out does not sit so well with STV. A totally new process is needed and he recommends that all three seats be re-elected. Peter de Blanc says we should discuss the two viable options.
Patrick suggested that whilst STV may or may not be appropriate, whatever
system needs to be understood by the whole community.
Kilnam Chon reported that the AP region think all three reps be re-elected and that a simple 3 vote system be used (first past the post) all know how it works and he wants to propose it.
Willie Black agreed that the 3 seats must be re elected but we need to address what to do if one drops out. He takes the point that we need a system that all understand but he also believes we should not be rushed by ICANN and if we are not on time for January deadline so be it.
Peter de Blanc asked the meeting to state their view of voting for on or all three members. By a show of hands the consensus of the meeting was that all three seats be subject to new elections with one exception (Elisabeth Porteneuve for France). It was agreed that the meeting was not representative of the full constituency and that the consensus of the meeting should be related to the ccTLD constituency for agreement via the mailing list.
Rob Hall and Dennis Jennings agreed that we should get a process in place for new elections and, if necessary, ask the new board for an extension to the current waiver should it be necessary.
Willie Black and Patrick O'Brien undertook to put together for comment some options for new election processes and invited others to join them should they wish.
George Daniel pointed out that a process that allowed more than one nomination from each region caused the problem. He agreed to join Willie and Patrick in devising new processes for future elections.
4. Administrative Committee
Currently adhoc an unelected having been set up initially to administer elections to the Names Council. Now need to put the Adcom on a more formal footing and this may require elections. It was agreed that this was a mater for each regional or group to devise a suitable method of choosing their Adcom representation.
Willie reminded the meeting that he had stated in Berlin that an Adcom was wrong and a permanent secretariat was required with a manager to manage the lists and the work.
Peter de Blanc pointed out that if there had been no Adcom less would have been done in the last few months.
Patrick agreed that the constituency needs a centre for work but why duplicate
in each region.
There would still need to be a board for executive decisions.
5. Funding (ccTLD secretariat, DNSO, ICANN webcasting)
Secretariat for ccTLDs
Peter de Blanc worked with UN for some time and many sections have
He feels the constituency needs a focus and a mechanism for funding and paying for people, arrange telephone conferences etc. He suggested we look for a way of creating it and has put together funding models including commercial sponsorships not sure of others are happy for that but all others do it.
Fay, as the person who has provided most of the support so far, read out her document on a work plan for the ccTLD constituency secretariat and will post to the ccTLD lists.
Dennis Jennings cautioned against multi-layers of secretariat. All want more
work done but none want to pay. He suggested the ASO model might work where
each of the 3 registries takes the secretariat work for one year on a rotation
Patrick O'Brien agreed but pointed out that the ASO has three funded bodies already and felt ccTLDs should build one and make regions light weight.
Peter de Blanc not looking for a heavy structure but you cannot get work on a consistent basis on a voluntary basis with an hour stolen here and there from day jobs. Space could be rented in APTLD or CENTR but you need to pay to play. Marcel Schneider pointed out that when the wwTLD was created in Geneva, it was assumed that all regions would be at the same level as CENTR. Without that it is difficult to rotate.
Dennis made the point that CENTR could no longer contribute (Fay's time) without funding for an extra person.
Kilnam Chon advised that APTLD have a different approach. ASO is APTLD and not
APCCTLD and they take in a wider area and are looking at changing aptld to
apdnso to incorporate support for all areas of the DNSO within the region. His
region is different and cannot afford all these secretariats.
Patrick responded that we need to focus on ccTLDs and need to buy into a ccTLD organisation such as CENTR, which is well established and can be expanded for global work. He proposed CENTR be that organisation.
Eve Froelich agreed with Dennis that we cannot pay to too many organisations (ICANN DNSO CENTR etc) she has to stand up and explain to her customers and needs to be able to justify the expenditure. She felt that regional issues would remain though we need a global organisation. We could share the global secretariat or pay one of the existing regional organisations to run a website etc.
Oscar Robles stated that ccTLDs should pay and define work and funding
required. Dennis supported this and suggested that Fay publish her work
for comment and a call for proposals with a task force to handle.
George Daniel also felt the issue of billing many times is a problem and if there are 5 regions they can support the global secretariat in such a way so there is only one cheque for each ccTLD to pay.
Peter de Blanc responded that only Europe and AP region are developed enough to do that.
Jim Higgins said that ccTLDs need to set up a company in a suitable country with a few larger ccTLDs contributing to get it going. It does not matter where it is and regions can opt to run their own secretariat or to use support form the global secretariat .
Budi Rahardjo questioned what we get for the money and Peter de Blanc reminded
the meting that we already get a Website and mailing lists currently for
To have the best quality services though costs money. On a political side, even if w are going to pay ICANN for everything, we would get more respect and power if we had a chunk of money to bargain with and one organisation able to deal with it.
Eva Froelich asked if ccTLDs want to be part of ICANN and DNSO and needs to be answered first as this effects the work of a secretariat. She cautioned against making decisions before the outcome of discussions on DNSO/ICANN relationship with ccTLDs.
Kilnam Chon, listening to all the comments, felt he was coming round to the idea that regional versus global secretariat was the issue and one needs to be thin and one heavier weight. This can be discussed in AP meeting Friday to which all are welcome. Incorporation needs to be decided before Feb 2000 all welcome to come to the meeting on Friday.
Funding Webcasting and DNSO
We are required to fund $5000 for webcasting we do not have a secretariat so
how do we handle this and future funding of the DNSO.
Dennis Jennings suggested it be separated into two questions. There is a long-term issue of whether the constituency should fund the DNSO and NC. There is also a short-term problem of the webcasting funding and the NC has agreed to pay its share as it was obliged to webcast. He was unhappy at money being spent without budgets for approval in advance. However, ccTLDs may have to pay the $5000 and, on behalf of the Irish registry, he had underwritten the ccTLD share. He warned that if constituencies are not prepared to fund the DNSO in the long term he cannot take part as it is in unacceptable to belong to an organisation that spends money it does not have.
Willie Black said that if there is a bill of $5000 he will chip in a little
we need to question future spending of this type. DENNIS agrees that we pay
towards the past expenditure but we need to ensure that in future budgetary
process in put in place.
Kilnam Chon felt that before paying, we need a letter of intention to sort these issues out for future. With regard to the past webcasting expenditure, he cannot believe that webcasting costs so much money and we need explanation and estimates and invoices to justify.
Budi agreed with this and pointed out that many cannot pay and cannot afford to travel to meetings.
Dennis Jennings requested input from the meeting for NC meeting item on funding. The consensus of the meeting appeared to be that the constituency wants to see full budgets of expenditure for approval to be divided based on ability to pay. Elisabeth has put in a huge amount of work for free (contributed by AFNIC) and it will cost money. We may decide we may not be part of DNSO but if we are getting the service we have to pay.
Peter de Blanc agrees that we need a formal basis for the work so we can rely upon it and control the work. It is not acceptable for people to spend money and request funding afterwards.
Getting back to immediate commitments, the $5000 requested from each of 7 constituencies of DNSO covers Santiago, LA and leaves a little left for NC. Consensus of the meeting is no more be spent and given without approval.
Peter de Blanc suggested that CENTR collect donations and pay over to ICANN
Funding of ICANN
Willie Black, who is on the ICANN Funding Task Force reported that he had
tabled a split between large, medium and small registries with a 'pepper
of $1 for those who cannot afford to pay. His table produced $ 1.5m. When put
to the ccTLD list, he only received comments about the size of the budget and
ccTLD proportion of it. After his initial posting he got very little response.
Peter de Blanc questioned why we are not being asked to pay one
the budget, equal with other SOs and constituencies.
WB replied that this is because gTLDs and ccTLDs are the ones collecting from the registrants. ASO say they are not for profit and many of their customers are also though he is dubious.
Peter de Blanc pointed out that there is a fee associated with IP numbers so they should be paying.
Dennis asked who is benefiting from ICANN? He sees headlines about E-commerce
and trademark protection and these people are not paying.
WB said it was deemed that the bulk of expenditure was concerned with setting up ICANN and he could not persuade the funding task force to reduce.
ccTLDs are prepared to pay for the root, services and data base but this is less than $500k and this is not even if the ICANN budget.
Peter de Blanc pointed out that if 250 ccTLDs sign up and give the money, that legitimises the whole process. ICANN future would be less assured if ccTLDs decide not to join and pay and set up their own organisation with an advisory committee into ICANN.
Dennis warned that ICANN have already spent substantial sums and next year they will be looking for money again which we have not authorised.
Naomasa, also on the Funding Task Force, felt it is the end user that benefit
from ICANN justifying the current proposal to collect the bulk of the funding
through RIRs, TLDs and registrars. Whether we agree with what ICANN are doing
with the money is another matter. We are spending lots of money and attending
stressful meetings so we have to decide to pay or not. If we choose to pay we
can request they change the approach, particularly the DNSO mechanisms.
Jim Higgins said if we move away from ICANN it fails but if we have a contract for services do we have an obligation to prop up ICANN and what do we get out of it. It was set up to provide an international organisation for the Internet but ccTLDs have an organisation which is already international and we could develop further.
Naomasa thought we should continue with ICANN rather than start again and Herbert Vitzthum pointed out that others will fund ICANN if we do not. It was pointed out that ICANN is already going to be under pressure in the US (congress) because of the lack of US citizens on the board.
Mads Bryde Andersen, introduced himself as the chairman of DK Internet forum responsible for .DK. ICANN in the US as in transition from US government and US feel they own the Internet. He asks how can non-US organisations be requested to pay when no budgets or accounts?
Marcel Schneider also finds it outrageous but warned that if ICANN fails the governments would step in so we need to be careful.
Mads, does not think we should leave ICANN to go bust but suggests we put
pressure on ICANN to work together with the global community and we need input
into expenditure and proper reports.
Patrick summarised that 5 key questions were emerging:
-Should we be funding ICANN?
-What funding level is appropriate?
-What services are being purchased?
-What are the contractual arrangements?
-How do we recover within the constituency?
Willie Black reminded that ICANN have to have fund for the expenditure that
already been incurred in setting up ICANN and is not for services. Under his
model, the 10 largest registries would contribute $50k and the next 40 would
pay $20K and so on down to $1 for those not charging.
The alternative is you let the big companies pay and they will demand control. Jim Higgins pointed out that NSI and ccTLDs are expected to pay 90% of the budget with no seats on the board.
Dennis Jennings felt that we should pay as the industry should be in control not the governments. In paying however, we should shape ICANN into what we believed it should be over the next few years.
Rob Hall agreed with Dennis, whatever the cost we have to pay something to save it from the alternative of governments in control. However, we should have board seats for what we pay.
Naomasa disagreed with the opinion that we get no benefit from ICANN and reminded the meeting of the Alternic interlude and how ICANN removes the likelihood of that kind of anarchy.
Patrick O'Brien suggested looking at it as a business investment decision and we need an expectation of future returns in respect of contract, representation and financial probity.
6. Contracts with ICANN (item taken by Dennis Jennings)
He related the key issues to CENTR members:
i. An agreement/contract for the root Zone files DNS root service and database
Not sure who has control of the root and those that do, operate on a voluntary basis and will not enter into a contract for fear of being sued. The service is fundamental to ccTLD business and we need it secured.
ii. Relationship between ICANN & ccTLDs
Possible that we continue to participate in ICANN within the DNSO or as an Advisory Committee or (Could also do both)
iii .Code of best practice
Governments are keen on this The GAC are considering it also. This is something we need to address with input from outside and should develop Best practice ourselves not have it imposed.
iv. Procedures for changing who runs a ccTLD
New ccTLDs, change of designated manager What if government asks for a change. It is tricky but we need to set up procedures, ourselves or we let someone else impose them.
We need to be seen to address these issues and set out timetable. We need procedures to gather input and a timetable to deliver
In concluding he pointed out that new elections for Names Council representatives are not in the top 5.
Peter Dengate Thrush agreed and warned that we are not as good as other constituency are more organised.
Willie Black pointed out that some constituencies involve limited numbers people and it is a just a few dominating the whole constituency. We may have been naive but some constituencies have railroaded through.
Peter de Blanc reintroduced the possibility of contracting for services and
getting out of the whole process and funding of ICANN. He believes we should
stay involved and change the direction of ICANN and in handing over the funds
we demand more say.
Naomasa returned to the Funding Task Force and reported that it is proposed to have a meeting on Thursday after the board meeting to talk about ccTLD funding.
He asks he meeting for input on whether such a meeting should take place and the consensus was yes. Naomasa will co-ordinate.. George Daniel suggested that we ask to go with RFC1591 before paying.
Jim Higgins reminded that the money we are being asked for is to fund the meetings and staff and not for services which would be in addition. No problem buying service but if we pay for the 'circus', we need seats on the board. It was pointed out that if we pay we are paying a large contribution to legitimising ICANN and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a strength and should be remembered when negotiating.
Dennis Jennings referred those present to the Draft CENTR principles for the ccTLD contract as promised to have it circulated electronically for comment.
7. Government Advisory Committee of ICANN (GAC)
It was reported that Paul Twomey had asked the ccTLD Names Council reps to participate at noon on 2/11 for a session of exchange of views. Dennis Jennings felt they should go but point out they were there to listen. This does not necessarily give recognition that the GAC have any authority. He invited the meeting to give their reps any specific input they wished to.
Also requested views of the constituency for NC meeting in the afternoon.
Peter Dengate Thrush pointed out that the constituency should decide who attended this meeting rather than GAC telling the constituency. He is not sure he likes being summoned in this matter.
Bill Semich stressed that the GAC meeting would be addressing 'best practices'
and setting the agenda. We do want to legitimise it on their terms. We need to
Patricio Poblete said the NC members need input from all and to make it clear to GAC that they do not carry the mandate of the constituency.
Marcel Schneider agreed that we should be driving the 'best practice'.
Jim Higgins advised that there are two documents written by the GAC but both
impose government control of ccTLDs and he recommended that our reps go in
stating the meeting is not a consultation on their documents as it will be
used to say that GAC have consulted ccTLDs.
George Daniel pointed out that if the geo-diversity is being imposed on us it should be pointed out to GAC that the small group they formed to draft the documents is not representative of all ccTLD governments.
It was felt that that section of the GAC meeting would be open but if closed,
it was suggested that we do not participate and legitimise their closed
Others felt that we would be denying ourselves intelligence and should go with caveats mentioned above. Patricio pointed out that some of the GAC reps do not know very much about the whole issue and it was important that they got a ccTLD prospective as well as the opinion of the dominant GAC reps.
Rob Hall agreed that we have to go and start a dialogue even if it closed. Dennis warned that if we did not attend, the GAC would say that ccTLDs are not responsible and not addressing the issues leaving the GAC to do it. ccTLDs need to demonstrate that they take the issues seriously and will deal with it themselves.
Dennis felt that if ICANN accept the GAC document on best practice he would
walk away and recommends that others do as it would be a fundamental
faith. Policy change must go to DNSO and in particular those who are most
affected (ccTLDs in this case)
He suggested that they go but add to the agenda the issue of who attends
meetings or become liaison points on particular issues.
There was no objection to this proposal.
Eva Froelich believed the strategy should be to go and listen and bring back to the constituency. We do not know what they want to discuss yet so we cannot really address it at this meeting..
Peter de Blanc agrees that if these people go as the ccTLD constituency, it gives credence to their documents. He urged that the NC representatives to confine themselves to bringing back comments to the constituency who will respond when consultations have taken place.
Rob Hall suggests they go to open lines of communication and should not bind
the constituency but bring back comments.
Patricio wanted to know before going, if there were any issues which, if raised, should not go unchallenged, such as the triangular relationship they propose. It was generally agreed however that one view does not prevail and we cannot necessarily have one solution.
Dennis suggested telling the GAC that we take the business seriously, will work on the key issues as outlined within a time structure (few months) and outlining what the issues are for them to take it into account. Some draft documents are out, funding, contract etc. and more will be done.
'One size fits all' will not do and this must be the message.
Bill Semich remarked that the 5 items to be raised as Dennis mention are not agreed by the constituency at large and should not be sold as such.
Patrick felt we need to maintain the diversity that currently exists
Kilnam Chon suggested as this is the first time we are invited we go and listen and state that all should be invited not just the people they choose. We could invite them in future to our meetings. No specific statements should be made at this stage.
Rob Hall says we must trust the NC reps to go ahead but ask them to put forward the extremes within the constituency on issues. Budi agrees.
Eva Froelich asked for written report of GAC meeting
Summing up, Patrick O'Brien thought a more rigorous process was needed for
The was strong support emerging for a wwTLD group and the ccTLDs need to concentrate on development of policy as this was also recognised as priority but no action to take it forward.
BILL SEMICH Peter Dengate Thrush and Dennis Jennings volunteered to start a working group on this
NB: Not all present signed the list that was circulated so the list is not complete
Peter de Blanc .vi (Chair)
Fay Howard CENTR (scribe)
Elisabeth Porteneuve .fr
Annie Renard .fr
Doron Shikmoni .il
Mads Bryde Andersen .dk
Daiva Tamulioniene .lt
Herbert Vitzthum .at
Patrick O'Brien .nz
Peter Dengate Thrush .nz
Jim Higgins .nz
Bill Semich .nu
Dennis Jennings .ie
Patricio Poblete .cl
Nigel Roberts .gg
Oscar Robles .mx
Ching Fu Kuo .tw
William Black .uk
Robert Hall .ca
Kuo Wu .tw
Olle Thylander .se
Per Darnell .se
Eve Froelich .se
Budi Rahardjo .id
Stephan Welzel .de
Sabine Dolderer .de
Carsten Schiefner .de
Brian Cartmell .cc
Derek Newman .cc
Makiko Matsumaru .jp
Toshi Tsubo .jp
Naomasa Maruyama .jp
Antony van Couvering IATLD
Kan Tsuzurahara .jp
Yann Kwok .mu
Zeta Wenzel .us
Carla Glinton .bs
Shannelle Mason .bs
Paul Kane .ac
Bart Boswinkel .nl
George Daniel .ag
Don Telage gTLD registry
Renate de Haas Gray Cary Wave & ?????
Cleveland Thornton Legalbits.com
Stephen Dooley Sidley & Austin
Sharon Bush Netnames
Robert West Network Solutions Registry
Chuck Gomes Network Solutions Registry
Tom Newell Network Solutions Registry