Notes from ccTLD registries
Dear ccTLDs, A meeting of ccTLD representatives was held in Berlin on 25th May in conjunction with ICANN event held 25-27 May 1999. The meeting was attended by more than 52 participants (a small number did not sign the attendees list) coming from all 5 of the geographical regions indentified by ICANN. When taking into consideration that fact that some of those present are listed as contacts for more than one registry, over 45 ccTLDs were represented. Thanks go to Jorn Grotnes, representing Gambia, who volunteered to take notes which are pasted below together with a list of participants. A CENTR document setting out basic principles was used to discuss the formation and structure of the constituency and this was subsequently re-written to take into account the consensus reached during the meeting. The new document of guiding principles for the ccTLD Constituency (also pasted below) was submitted to ICANN for consideration in the Board meeting of 27 May. During this meeting ICANN provisionally recognized the ccTLD constituency, along with 5 others, until the annual meeting of the Board in 1999. The President of the Corporation is directed to work with the Constituencies to amend their proposals to addressd deficiencies in the submissions noted by the Board. see http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html Unlike ccTLDs, some constituency had already elected Names Coucnil representatives but thes are considered interim and there will be new election of Names Council representatives following the approval by the Board of such amended proposal. The minutes and the Principles document will be posted to the Constituency page of CENTR's Website http://www.centr.org/constpage.html. Links to relevant ICANN documents will also be updated. Further debate to develop the structure, rules and voting procedures of the constituency will now be required. In respect of electing Name Council representatives, it was proposed during the constituency meeting to use Single Transferable Vote (STV)system whcih we are not all familiar with. Nigel Roberts of .JE/.GG kindly offered to circulate to the ccTLD list some explanatory notes on STV. As a truly global constituency, we need to further develop means of ensuring that all can participate in meetings by electronic means. We must also work on ways to ensure that differing regional cultures are recognised and non-native English speaking participants are not disadvantaged. After consultations with Agnes Lee of Singapore, I hope to make some proposals on these subject in a following Email and would welcome other suggestions. I will also post some information on the progress of DNSO in respect of communications (email and Website) on which Elisabeth Porteneuve of AFNIC is working. Apologies for the length of this email and thanks to all who have contributed to progress so far. Kiond regards Fay Howard CENTR Meeting, to form ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO Draft Minutes The meeting was opened on the 25th of May 199 at 08:40. Dennis Jennings (Chairman of CENTR) opened the meeting as local co-chair, and welcomed the participants (see participant list at the end of this document). The other meeting co-chairs were Robert Hall (CA ccTLD), Kilnam Chon, Chairman of APTLD, (Oscar Robles for LACTLD and Nii Quaynor of Ghana were present for part of the meeting only as they were required to attend the MAC) Fay Howard of CENTR and Antony van Couvering of IATLD chaired the debate. All present were asked to introduce themselves and state which registry they represented. 52 signed the participants list representing more than 45 regisrties (some being listed contacts for more than the one registry noted on the sign-up sheet). It was noted that there was representation from all 5 of the geographical regions defined by ICANN. Appreciation was expressed to all those who had contributed documents and comment on the formation of the constituency. The CENTR document, consisting of principles agreed by CENTR members and incorporating points from the documents of others was distributed to all present and used as the working document for the meeting. The documents contents were organised after the original proposal for an agenda as distributed by e-mail by Fay Howard, but it was new to the participants in its current form and consisted of proposals for ccTLD principles. Clarification was sought on the roles of CENTR, IANA and ICANN, presumably in relation to the preparation of the document. Dennis Jennings replied to the effect that this was an effort by CENTR to make a starting point for discussion. Point 1.1 was accepted as it simply stated "The ccTLD Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting Organisation, ('DNSO') is one of the initial constituencies of the DNSO". Point 2.1 stated: "Members of the ccTLD Constituency are those organisations recorded as managers of an ISO 3166 country code Top Level Domain Registry in the register maintained by IANA/ICANN. Organisation may decline to join the ccTLD Constituency." NZ asked whether individuals rather than organisations be members. NU raised the point that a member is a manager of the domain, regardless of the underlying organisation, as this is dependent on the ccTLD itself and not addressed in this document. UK suggested the point changed to say "organisation/individual" CH suggested "holder" US (observer) points out that the issue is to establish a contractual relationship between ICANN and ccTLD. MD asked to what extent ICANN can set rules for ccTLDs It was pointed out that the ccTLD organisation, as it is planned, is a part of ICANN and therefore rules will be set by ICANN (membership is not compulsory). The participating ccTLDs will themselves be part of ICANN, which should not be seen as an external entity. GG notes that the primary goal for the ccTLD is to have a stable root. Conclusion: the general consensus was to change the wording of point 2.1 to reflect the individuality of the ccTLDs organisation Point 2.2 stated: "Members are represented by an individual, duly authorised by the ccTLD organisation, usually at a senior level." No special comments on this point Point 2.3 stated: Each member shall be identified by ICANN as belonging to one (and only one) of the global regions defined by ICANN. This point brought quite a few comments. NU clarified commenting that of the 3 selected members of the Naming Council, each should come from one of five world regions defined by ICANN. GG suggests that the ccTLD itself can define which region it belongs to. Dennis suggests that the definition of regions will be worked out between ccTLDs and ICANN. NZ and UK moved to remove the words ICANN from 2.3. The consensus after a long debate including debating other points that touch upon the issue of regions (5.2, 5,4) was that the global regions as proposed by ICANN does not serve a useful purpose in the formation of the ccTLD constituency and that this entire point should be struck out. The ccTLD constituency being unique in that there is potentially one vote for every country and that ensures global representation. Point 3.1 stated "A Management Council shall manage the affairs of the ccTLD Constituency." Dennis explains that this is the remnant of the original ICANN proposal of internal administration in the ccTLD constituency. The discussion began with whether such a council is needed for ccTLD. The consensus was that it is needed, and in addition that it needs to represent the different groups. Examples mentioned are: * Language groups, formed by ccTLDs that share a common language * Regional groups that are already formed or are in the process of being formed like the groups for European or Asian/Pacific ccTLDs. * Groupings of ccTLDs with interests in common. The consensus is also that this is a "facilitating" council, or administrative, rather than managerial. The council should distribute information in a way so that can easily be understood how it affects the ccTLDs, and that will alert the constituency members that their input is required. To create a group which will be represented in the council with a spokesperson 10 ccTLDs must agree to form it. The council will have the duty to report to the Naming Council of the DNSO, but will not in itself have decision power. Point 4.1 stated "The ccTLD Constituency shall operate on the principle that decisions shall be made on the basis of consensus." Point 4.2 stated: "The consensus process shall be managed by the Management Council." These points were not contested, but the basis for recognising consensus was discussed at length without reaching a clear conclusion. The voting mechanism will not be used excessively, and the council may report a split position (not necessarily a full consensus) to the naming council in DNSO. Point 5.1 stated "Two members may nominate (i.e. propose and second) an individual as a candidate for election to the Names Council. Candidates may accept or decline such nomination." This is accepted without comments. Point 5.2 stated "Candidates shall be identified with the region of the proposing member" This was discussed at length. The consensus was to do away with regional identification of candidates, and trust the voting process to produce candidates from the entire ccTLD constituency, geographically diverse as it necessarily is. The voting process should be reviewed after the first year. The consensus was that the ccTLD proposal should state that it will be formed without the concept of regional members. A proposal that a backup plan should be presented in the event that ICANN does not want (or can not) accept the ccTLD proposal in this form did not get consensus. Point 5.3 stated "Each member shall have one (1) vote for the election of the Names Council." This is accepted Point 5.4 stated "The Single Transferable Voting system of Proportional Representation shall be used, with the additional restriction that once a candidate from a region is elected, other candidates from that region are eliminated and their next preference votes distributed to the remaining candidates." This was the point that really established the above-mentioned decision to suggest removal of the regional classification of candidates. GG stated that the rule may give unpredictable result in the voting process. Denis sought opinion on the region idea. ZA stated that ccTLDs already have diversity and that it will be a much harder point to fulfil for the other constituencies. GH, UK and NU also contributed to the discussion. It was agreed after a long discussion that the voting would not work properly when the most popular candidates are easily thrown out by coming from a region where another candidate is elected. Instead the process should be monitored for area bias and changed as deemed necessary. CA had misgivings about this procedure and suggested that ICANN may be inclined to postpone the inclusion of a ccTLD constituency at until August. The consensus was that the ccTLD needs to stand firm on this point. 10:00 Mike Roberts, CEO of ICANN spoke to the ccTLD formation meeting: The points from this speech can be had on request. The highlights are: ICANN has modernised RFC1591 and the resulting document is called ICP1 which is posted on the IANA Website. Some concern was expressed that the document had not been announced widely and that posting it on a Website was not enough.. Some mirth was generated when Denis compared it to the Vogon behaviour in the start of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy" (look it up). Further discussion on the ways to distribute information received the comment from Dennis to distribute by mailing list/email. The general worry was whether even if the spirit of RFC1591 is not changed, it might have legal ramifications if ccTLDs cannot keep to the RFC for agreements. Mike Roberts invited to discuss it with him over email. The issue where Sean Jackson was blocked from representing the Turks & Ciacos Islands in the GAC meeting was raised. Mike Roberts stated that RFC 1591 specifically did not get into the business of defining countries but that the first part of the GAC meeting definitely was for governments of countries. It was commented that GAC meetings was primarily to make sure that regulations decided upon do not conflict with national law. GG raised the point that the ICANN is still US-centred, and the rumour that the US might like to control the Internet as desired (for example, to remove .YU from the root) came up. Mike Roberts responded that no matter where the ICANN placed its root this would be a problem if the country had problems. Most important to the ccTLD formation was that Mike Roberts accepted that there might be need to rethink the idea of regional candidates, as has been discussed in the ccTLD meeting so far. He comments that other constituencies has similar problems to find an effective way to ensure diversity. Mike Roberts leaves the meeting at 10:40. The meeting resumed after a short coffee break. Point 6.1 stated that "Names Council members shall serve for one year and elections shall be held annually." This was accepted without comments Point 6.2 stated that "There shall be no limit on the number of terms an individual may serve on the Names Council." A number of objections were raised. Consensus was reached that a decision on term limits should be made at a later stage, and that point 6.2 should be struck out. Point 7.1 stated that "The work of the ccTLD Constituency shall proceed following the rules of procedure to be established by the Constituency and managed by the Management Council." This was accepted Point 7.2 stated that "Where resolutions or recommendations require a vote of the membership, each ccTLD Constituency member shall have one (1) vote." This was accepted Point 7.3 stated that "The ccTLD Constituency members may arrange any necessary finance for the constituency in a manner to be agreed by the Constituency." This was accepted, as it says very little except that financing is the ccTLD's own responsibility. The consensus was that the ccTLD should keep administration to a minimum, and that the groups making up the council will keep their own expenses but may contribute to cover costs for the general ccTLD maintenance when and if it arises. No further mechanism is proposed for funding. Point 8 stated that "The ccTLD Constituency may share in the funding of the DNSO in a manner to be agreed by the Names Council and accepted by the ccTLD Constituency Names Council members." Point 9 stated that "The ccTLD Constituency members will participate in the DNSO General Assembly." Accepted without comment Point 10.1 stated that "The ccTLD Constituency processes shall adhere to the ICANN principles of openness and transparency." The meeting does not vouch for ICANN principles, and the consensus was to let the sentence stand without the word "ICANN" (amid some mirth) Point 10.2 stated that "Meetings of the ccTLD Constituency shall, as far as practicable, be open to the public." A question was raised about whether it includes public access to mailing lists. Since the ccTLD mailing list will be moderated, and the groups that work within the ccTLD organisation may have private mailing list. The point was accepted as it stands. Point 11.1 stated that "The ccTLD Constituency shall operate using whatever electronic means are available for discussion and communication to ensure, as far as practicable, that neither location nor inability to travel disenfranchises any ccTLD." The point was accepted, with consensus on the fact that this means e-mail. . Point 11.2 stated that "The ccTLD Constituency voting procedures shall require that all resolutions are confirmed by a secure electronic vote of the members so that no proxy voting is required (or permitted)." A discussion regarding secret (as compared to secure) voting ensued.. The consensus was that an open vote with a person screening the counting data is acceptable, and that security is obtained by verifying that only one vote is cast per member and sending a acknowledgement to the member that the vote has been received. Final comments before adjourning was that the conclusions from this meeting need distributing to remaining ccTLDs for their input. The Chairs expressed thank to DENIC (Germany) for their efforts in organising the meeting and to all participants for attending. CLOSE Particpants list: Fay Howard CENTR Antony van CouveringIATLD Kilnam Chon APTLD & .KR Korea Dennis Jennings CENTR & .IE Ireland Robert Hall .CA Canada Oscar Robles LACTLD & .MX Mexico Nii Quaynor .GH Ghana Bill Semich .NU Niue Jim Higgins .NZ New Zealand Jorn Grotnes .GM Gambia (Scribe) Harold Carrol .NU Niue Doron Shikmoni .IL Israel Kuo Wei Wu .TW Taiwan Alf Hansen .NO Norway Elisabeth Porteneuve.FR France Annie Renard .FR France Marc Hensel .LU Luxembourg Eva Froelich .SE Sweden Per Darnell .SE Sweden Barbara Povse Golab .SI Slovenia Pedro Veiga .PT Portugal Marta Dias .PT Portugal Boudewijn Nederkoorn.NL Netherlands Bart Boswinkel .NL Netherlands Youn Jung Park APTLD Maciej Kozlwski .PL Poland Robert Ryan .NF Norfolk Island Ed Sweeney .HM Heard and McDonald Islands Karen Rose .US (Observer) USA Agnes Lee .SG Singapore Makiko Matsumara .JP Japan Toshi Tsubo .JP Japan Shuichi Tashiro .JP Japan Clint Mole .KY Cayman Islands John Harris .MD Moldova Willie Balck .UK United Kingdom Robert de Neewtown .UK United Kingdom Paul Kane .IO Indian Ocean Territories Anthony Brooks .ZA South Africa Yann Kwok .MU Mauritius Victor Castelo .ES Spain Nigel Roberts .GG/JE Guernsey/Jersey Demi Getschko .BR Brazil William Mee .ZA South Africa Vittore Casarosa .IT Italy Agathoclis Stylianou.CY Cypress Per Koelle .DK Denmark Carsten Scheifner .DE Germany Sabine Dolderer .DE Germany Eugenie Staicut .RO Romania Marcel Schneider .CH/LI Switzerland, Lichtenstein Sean Jackson .TC Turks & Ciacos Islands (There were also a small number who attended part of the meeting but did not sign the attendance sheet) DRAFT - For Approval by the ICANN Board ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO Version 4.0 - 25 May 1999 Principles The following are the guiding principles for the organisation of the ccTLD Constituency. This document is based on the principles of openness, geographic diversity, inclusivity and simplicity, as expressed during the discussions at the initial ccTLD Constituency meeting held in Berlin. 1. The ccTLD Constituency 1.1. The ccTLD Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting Organisation, ('DNSO') is one of the initial constituencies of the DNSO. 2. Members of the ccTLD Constituency 2.1. Members of the ccTLD Constituency are those recorded managers of an ISO 3166 country code Top Level Domain Registry in the register maintained by IANA/ICANN. Managers may decline to join the ccTLD Constituency. 2.2. Members are represented by an individual, preferably at a senior level, duly authorised by the ccTLD manager. 3. The ccTLD Administration Committee 3.1. An Administration Committee shall manage the affairs of the ccTLD Constituency. 3.2. The initial Administration Committee shall consist of representatives of the ccTLD regional organisations. 3.3. In addition, any grouping of 10 or more ccTLD members may self organise and nominate a representative to the Administration Committee. 4. Consensus 4.1. The ccTLD Constituency shall operate on the principle that decisions shall be made on the basis of consensus. 4.2. The consensus process shall be managed by the ccTLD Administration Committee. 5. The ccTLD Names Council Members 5.1. Two members may nominate (i.e. propose and second) an individual as a candidate for election to the Names Council. Candidates may accept or decline such nomination. 5.2. Each member shall have one (1) vote for the election of the Names Council. 5.3. The Single Transferable Voting system of Proportional Representation shall be used to elect the three Names Council members. (N.B. This method of election from a slate of candidates nominated from around the world, and selected by an electorate from every country in the world, has the inherent advantage that the outcome is most likely to produce a geographically diverse set of Names Council members). 5.4. Names Council members shall serve for one year and elections shall be held annually. 5.5. The above voting procedures shall be reviewed prior to the second election. (N.B. A particular concern is that the election procedures shall result in the election of excellent candidates who reflect the geographical diversity of ccTLD Constituency). 6. Work of the ccTLD Constituency 6.1. The work of the ccTLD Constituency shall proceed following the rules of procedure to be established by the Constituency and managed by the Administration Committee. 6.2. Where resolutions or recommendations require a poll of the membership, each ccTLD Constituency member shall have one (1) vote. 7. Funding the ccTLD Constituency 7.1. The ccTLD Constituency members may arrange any necessary funding for the constituency in a manner to be agreed by the Constituency. 8. Funding the DNSO 8.1. The ccTLD Constituency may share in the funding of the DNSO in a manner to be agreed by the Names Council and accepted by the ccTLD Constituency. 9. Participation in the DNSO General Assembly 9.1. The ccTLD Constituency members will participate in the DNSO General Assembly. 10. Open Transparent Processes 10.1. The ccTLD Constituency processes shall adhere to the principles of openness and transparency. 10.2. Meetings of the ccTLD Constituency shall, as far as practicable, be open to the public. 11. Electronic Participation 11.1. The ccTLD Constituency shall operate using whatever electronic means are available for discussion and communication to ensure, as far as practicable, that neither location nor inability to travel disenfranchises any ccTLD. 11.2. The ccTLD Constituency voting procedures shall require that all resolutions be confirmed by a secure (and where necessary confidential) electronic vote of the members. 12. Amendments 12.1. These ccTLD Constituency principles may be amended by a two-thirds majority of a vote of the ccTLD Constituency members. 12.2. Upon a petition by at least 10% of the membership, the ccTLD Administration Committee shall put any matter to a vote of the whole Constituency. On behalf of the ccTLD Constituency meeting in Berlin.