Notes of the ccTDL Adcom conference call written by PDT.
Chaired by: Peter Dengate Trush
- It was agreed that Peter Dengate Thrush as ccTLD chair in Shanghai should chair the Adcom meetings/conference calls between now and the Shanghai meeting.
- Peter Dengate Thrush ran through a list of items for the agenda for the call including.
- A sign up page for individual members to sign up for ccSO.
- Agreements required from Centre, apTLD, lacTLD, naTLD and afTLD on the role of regional associations in the ccSO.
- Funding of the DNSO.
- The ccTLD agenda for Shanghai.
- Reconciling the ccTLD Bucharest position with the Blueprint - the number of board seats, the board role in making policy, the representation on Council.
- Progress over the contract dispute - New Zealand steps.
- Relations with the ITU.
- Approval of the "input to ccSO" document.
- Regional working groups with the GAC.
- Possible Council elections prior to Shanghai.
- N Roberts requested that on every agenda the "action items" left from the previous meeting be rolled over and this be a standing instruction. This was supported by a number of speakers and the staff agreed that this would happen in future.
- Following the on-list exchange, regional members reported their positions. P Poblete on behalf of lacTLD indicated that there have been a round of consultation, but still not a final opinion. However, indications were that there was agreement that the ccTLD should get out of the DNSO reasonably promptly, that by departing we would not lose too much, that we could still communicate with the board and the other constituencies. Opinion was less clear and divided on the issue of whether we should pay past dues.
- N Roberts reported that Centr's position was that there was an opinion on both sides, but it was no longer regarded as an important issue, having taken a position that they would not pay anything to the DNSO. He undertook to provide an official position from Centr online.
- P Dengate Thrush reported that the Asia Pacific position had been to support the DNSO, and that much of the money contributed to date had come through the apTLD from its members. A formal decision could be obtained online also reasonably quickly.
- E Porteneuve provided a Names Council perspective. At the last meeting Louis Touton had indicated that there may be bylaw consequences of withdrawing a constituency from the DNSO.
- It was agreed that P Dengate Thrush would draft a question for approval by ADCOM before distribution to the regions seeking clear a decision on withdrawal (including a possible date) from the DNSO and payment of past dues.
- It was agreed at the Bucharest meeting in the combined ccTLD/GAC workshop that regional groups would be set up to further ccTLD/GAC dialogue.
- A mechanism for organising this needs to be set up. E Porteneuve reported that a group of three Centr members had met with three EU officials in Brussels, as a preliminary process for Europe. There was some discussion about whether a single ccTLD committee could organise this, or whether a first step would be to establish regional committees to liaise with regional GAC members. As a first step, a mission statement would be prepared so that each regional committee was addressing the same issues.
- There was some discussion about ITU developments. It was agreed that a way forward might be for the ccTLD outreach to encourage ccTLD managers to attend the ccTLD meeting, and for the GAC to encourage government officials to attend the GAC meeting.
- Y Kwok noted that African government officials tended to appear at ICANN meetings only when there was a redelegation issue looming in their country.
- There was some discussion about whether regional meetings could be held before the Shanghai meeting. It was noted that this was a possibility with the Centr general assembly on 4 September, and the apTLD meeting in early or mid-September. The other regions were not certain that a meeting before Shanghai could be organised. Y Kwok pointed out that there was an afriNIC AGM in Kenya in August, but that that was likely to be too soon to arrange governmental attendances. Many ccTLD managers also would not be there.
- B Turcotte reported that naTLD was preparing draft plans for its own structure, but was unlikely to organise a regional meeting with governments prior to Shanghai.
- E Porteneuve suggested that the ADCOM needed to be more proactive in seeking support, ie. by referring to the communiqués, the one page diagram used in Bucharest to show the structure of the ccSO and suggested this should be sent to all ccTLD managers asking them to act within a certain time. The meeting noted that it was summer vacation period in the northern hemisphere. It was agreed that the regional meetings were a good opportunity to seek support for the SO.
- A deadline of 15 September 2002 was agreed as being the date on which ADCOM should aim to send to ICANN the application for the formation of the ccSO.
- P Poblete suggested that this exercise should be co-ordinated with our liaison with the ERC. It was noted that no implementation steps in relation to ccTLDs had yet been announced by the ERC. It was agreed that Peter Dengate Thrush would draft an email for despatch to the ERC after ADCOM approval, noting that the ADCOM had functioned as a policy formation committee for the ccTLDs in relation to the SO, and looked forward to working with the ERC in implementing the ccSO as a ccCSO Implementation Committee.
- There was discussion as to whether or not the ADCOM was sufficient, or whether alternates should be appointed from each region to support the ADCOM members.
- It was agreed to set up a telephone conference with ERC as soon as possible, and well before the closing of the vote on 15 September. Agenda for Shanghai
- It was agreed that the ccTLD meeting would run for three days, from Sunday 27 October through to Tuesday 29 October. The open forum would follow on Wednesday, 30 October, with the board meeting on Thursday, 31 October.
- The secretariat informed the meeting that it was to be held at the International Convention Centre, that there was a local website up. E Porteneuve noted that there could be certain visa requirements for delegates.
- It was agreed that we would invite the GAC to take part in another combined workshop. It was suggested that it would be more convenient for all if the meeting were held in the ccTLD room, particularly if it was as well appointed and large as the previous one, for which congratulations were due to the secretariat. Approximately 2 to 3 hours was suggested as appropriate. Other items for the agenda would be solicited online.
- The next call was scheduled for two weeks, at the same time.
NR: Write a letter to CENTR asking for a formal position regarding the DNSO funding.
AdCom: Arrive to a conclusion online regarding the DNSO funding on a regional basis
AdCom: Form and activate the Joint workshop with GAC
AdCom: Ask each region to set up a subcommittee with the GAC and work on a mission statement of the Joint Workshop with GAC.
AdCom: Write a letter to all the ccTLD managers and encourage them to sign up to the ccSO. The letter should include all the documents regarding the ccSO.
AdCom: Have the ccTLD managers sign up to the ccSO by 15 September 2002.
PDT: Draft a letter inviting the ERC to a teleconference with the AdCom members
AdCom and Secretariat: Set up a teleconference with the ERC
AdCom: Set up a joint committee with the ERC to coordinate efforts regarding the ccSO
BT: Try to get more information on ITU from the Canadian government official
AdCom: Draft an agenda for the Shanghai ccTLD meeting online