Date: 2000.7.12 0900-1030 AM, Grand InterContinental Hotel, Rm 2906
Discussed on the following items.
Chairman: Peter de Blanc
Reportuer: Kanchana, ccTLD Secratariat
1. Yokohama Meeting Schedule Update
AdCom Meeting: Intercontinental(2906)13/07/00 InterContinental Hotel (Ballroom East)
Pre-meeting (ICANN Funding WG)
Pre-meeting (ccTLD Bylaws WG)
1300-1430 Plenary Meeting Kaiyotei (Sakura)
1430-1600 ICANN Service WG Kaiyotei (Sakura)
1600-1800 Best Practice & Redelegation WG Kaiyotei
1930-2100 Status Quo Discussion InterCon.(2906)
900-1030 Best Practice & Redelegation WG (AdCom invites Name Council members and GAC)
1030-1200 ICANN Funding WG
1300-1800 Plenary Meeting
1800-2000 All constituencies meeting (Pacifico Rm 514)
750-850 ccTLD AdCom InterContinental(2906)
900-1015 GAC meeting (AdCom and NC members are invited) Pacifico
16/07/00 Pacifico 413
900-1800 Joint Workshop on DNSsec
17/07/00 Pacifico 501
900-1700 Joint Workshop on Multilingual Names Working Groups
Currently there appeared to be that two Working Groups were needed: one at the DNSO level on Multilingual Domain Names and another at the ccTLD level on UDRP.
Antony van Couvering had a report on the UDRP and would propose to the plenary meeting tomorrow to decide if a Working Group on the topic should be formed.
Dennis Jennings reported that CENTR had also done some work on UDRP.
Several comments regarding low participations of WG discussions were made. Most people tended to monitor the progress of the WGs but neither comment nor discuss. Voting participation were also very low. It was suggested that physical meetings of WGs may be important and should be considered.
3. Working Groups Status Reports
3.1 ccTLD Best Practices and Re/delegation:
Antony van Couvering, the WG chair, reported that there were two reports being distributed by the WG, one on Best Practices and another on the Re/delegation. Kilnam Chon asked if we could work with GAC to come up with a strong document.
The differences between GAC and ccTLD documents on Best Practices were considered to find some common grounds. It appeared that a compromise may be reached because both believed that at least local laws should be respected.
Antony van Couvering suggested that we talk to GAC regarding the status quo document that ICANN had just released (4 July, 2000).
Dennis Jennings reminded that compromise should not lead to accommodation. CENTR had produced its own document on this issue and did not have the one consensus document as necessary. It should be left to ICANN.
Discussion on the time frame for the Best Practices document would have to continue and be adopted by ICANN and be ready for implementation. It was expected that this document should be approved by ICANN Board of Directors by September 30, or else at the November meeting. Therefore, it most likely would be put into effect by March/April 2001.
The meeting agreed that good record keeping of the development was very important and Antony van Couvering would come up with milestones and discuss this issue at the July 12 plenary meeting.
3.2 ccTLD Funding to ICANN:
Peter de Blanc, Chairman of the ccTLD Funding to ICANN, reported to the meeting that very low participation on the voting of self-selected model as proposed by the WG had taken place. He also pointed out that outreach activity was extremely important and needed.
CENTR had its own position on funding and more than ten CENTR members had already pledged to ICANN where the payment was conditional.
3.3 ccTLD Bylaws:
Peter de Blanc, Chairman of the Bylaws WG, produced a draft Bylaws which had subsequently been revised by Kilnam Chon. A few ccTLD members had participated on the process. It was expected that the Bylaws would be presented to the ICANN Board of Directors on July 14, 2000.
A remark on the relationship between ccTLDs and ICANN was made that it was not so obvious that the structure, where the constituency is under DNSO, was appropriate.
4. ccTLD Secretariat and Funding
CENTR expressed its position that it was not happy with the selection process taken by AdCom because the Cairo meeting agreement was not followed. However, CENTR welcomed and would fund the secretariat's functions. It was later explained by Kilnam Chon that ccTLD constituency was formed based on the Berlin agreement. It was clear that face to face meeting only provided a venue for discussions but any formal processes should be carried out on-line. AdCom did take the formal process on-line where a request for proposal was sent out, on-line voting was called for and was properly recorded. Kilnam Chon also reminded the meeting that AdCom was a facilitating body not a decision-making body, hence its role was to facilitate the decision even though the level of participation is still low.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 am.
Participants: Peter de Blanc, Chairman
Antony van Couvering
Sue Leader (.nz)
Brain Livingston (InfoWorld)
Stephen Deerhake (.as)
Peter D. Thrush (.nz)
Ronald Wiplinger (.tw)
Orren Merren (.ky)