World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names

Administration Committee teleconference minutes

 Home | Meetings | AdCom | ccTLD | Participants 

22 October 2000

Written by Abhisak Chulya

Chair: Peter de Blanc
Reporter: Abhisak Chulya
Location: AIT, Bangkok, Thailand

Face-to-face participants:
Peter de Blanc
Peter Dengate Thrush
Kanchana Kanchanasut (Observer)
Kilnam Chon (Observer)
Abhisak Chulya (Observer)
Hualin Qian (Observer)

Teleconf. participants:
Patricio Poblete
Elisabeth Porteuneuve (Observer)

Discuss on the following items:

1. LA meeting Agenda

Peter Dengate Thrush suggested that we should have agenda approved over email before the actual meeting starts. The same goes to Minutes of Yokohama meetings. We should not spend a lot of times on these issues. Let's start with the most important thing and that is ICANN funding. Peter de Blanc wants to add on agenda to give a report on Joint cctld-APTLD meeting in Bangkok. Patricio stated that lack of interest in Names Council election and lack of input for DNSO review showed that the ccTLD community was not satisfied with the current structure. It's a possibility to create a ccTLD organization, with a peer relationship with ICANN, besides participating as a constituency of the DNSO. Peter Thrush commented that we had to face up to an issue. We have been talking about this that we will not pay ICANN levy until we get what we want from ICANN. Some countries may make donation to ICANN but we lack of solidarity. And that means we all should donate as one organization to ICANN, not from individual country. We have had no discussion about how funding was calculated. We also have discussion on invitation to form an organization to practice and funding. The reason to take part is not in DNSO or UDRP but new structure outside of ICANN. We have talked with Touton in Yokohama and he politically accepted. Patricio agreed and believed that current structure didn't work very well.

Peter de Blanc asked Elisabeth if CENTR appointed any one to ccTLD AdCom since Dennis Jennings resigned. Elisabeth said that after CENTR meeting in Lisbon, she expected European AdCom elections held promptly. She still hopes it will happen before LA meeting. Peter de Blanc commented that at least the Europe region should appoint a temporary one. She believes that CENTR is doing something.

Elisabeth commented on ICANN funding scheme. A lot of ccTLDs already paid to ICANN with more than one million USD. But how many staff have been hired by ICANN to work with ccTLDs. NONE. The money from ccTLDs should be used to deal with us. And there are hundred issues to deal with such as IANA who-is database. Peter de Blanc suggested to draft some kind of position statement and presented to ICANN. Patricio proposed to establish work group today and work to come up with a draft to circulate in LA meeting so that we could finish in better status. Peter Dengate Thrush volunteered to get a draft done within one week after getting back home.

2. ccTLDs vs. ICANN-IANA

Peter de Blanc mentioned that we have to resolve IANA database issue. It's not current and that prevents us from running democratic process within ccTLDs. Elisabeth said somebody needed to think on how to run this database and keep within ccTLDs which may deal a lot with technical issue. Peter de Blanc commented that the ccTLD should determine who is the authorized manager in cases of administrative changes which ARE NOT redelegations such as an organizational manager who is replaced with another executive. The organization does not change but the name of the administrative contact changes.

3. Delegation of ccTLDs

Peter de Blanc would like ICANN to explain to us on .eu registry and also how to transfer the list of ISO3166. Since .tamil or .arabic would like to have as ccTLDs but they are not on the list of ISO3166. In other words, we are asking what the process is of taking a 2 letter or 3 letter reserved character string and getting it into the root servers as a ccTLD. Let's discuss more at LA meeting.

4. Permanent ccTLD Secretariat

Chair said that we would start the process of selecting the Permanent ccTLD Secretariat by sending out RFP in November. We do need this level of administration. The Chair asked if there was any objection to start this process and no objection. Since the term of Interim Secretariat will be expired after LA meeting on November 16, Chair decided to extend the work of Interim ccTLD Secretariat to 90 more days or until Permanent Secretariat is voted by the Constituency.

5. Interim ccTLD Secretariat Funding

Peter de Blanc mentioned that we needed to collect donation another $ 30,000 to cover the expense until January. Let's divide to get $6,000 from each region roughly. Africa and Latin America may donate less than $6,000 but Europe should donate more. Chair asked Elisabeth if CENTR would donate to Secretariat. Elisabeth said she was confused as well and CENTR may do a lot of things on their own. Peter de Blanc also noted that ccTLD is committed to pay AFNIC for technical services, such as maintaining web, but that .fr has not actually paid their contribution to ccTLD account yet. Elisabeth said .FR would donate $2,000 to the Secretariat . Chair said if there were no EU representative in AdCom, how we can collect money from CENTR. He asked CENTR via Elisabeth to appoint one's.

6. WGs

Peter D. Thrush proposed to use software for online voting and asked if it's ok. But Elisabeth commented that Redelegation document was not completed such as how the relationship with country representatives. Chair said we should stop messaging these documents. If they satisfied, they can do something at the LA meeting. We need some closure here on all that we can. Elisabeth commented that redelegation was very complicate issue. We should try to find out way not to push ccTLDs and if we feel that some subjects may be politic, then we try not to vote on those subjects, and not split up the ccTLD group. Chair suggested we all look at the Redelegation document and make a point at the LA meeting.

7. NC Election

There is an issue during NC Global election on the ballot whether the voter should vote for "exactly three candidates" or "three candidates or less". The AdCom members ratified that the voter should vote for "three candidates or less".

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 UTC

© ccTLD Managers
Page updated : 2003-05-27 19:47:07