World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names
Administration Committee teleconference minutes
08 Jan 2003 at 10:00 UTC
Chaired by: Peter Dengate Thrush
Written by Eric Akumiah and Abhisak Chulya
Patricio Poblete (Latin America - Caribbean Region) (noted as PP)
Nigel Roberts (European Region)(noted as NR)
Peter Dengate Thrush (Asia-Pacific Region) (noted as PDT)
Yann Kwok (African Region)(noted as YK)
Bernard Turcotte (alternate, N. American region) (noted as BT)
Elisabeth Porteneuve (noted as EP)
Oscar Robles (noted as OR) (joined at latter part of the conference)
Jeff Neuman (from NeuLevel)
Abhisak Chulya (Executive Director, ccTLD Secretariat) (noted as AC)
Eric Akumiah (Deputy Executive Director, ccTLD Secretariat)
- Structure and Process of AdCom
- GNSO and Names Council Liaison
- Current ccTLD Secretariat situation
- ToR for Secretariat
- ccNSO AG Report
- AG/ERC Response and Amsterdam meeting
- ITU meeting in Geneva and ccSO Acceptance/Plan B
- ICANN Budget Group Committee
- Redelegation issues
- Nominating Committee
Peter Dengate Thrush, the AdCom representative of the AP region, chaired this AdCom Teleconference. In his opening remarks he requested for members to make any additions to the agenda before the teleconference began. PP asked what item 2 meant, as DNSO is no more. PDT said it was supposed to be GNSO and Names Council liaison. PDT added an item to the list on the Agenda as item 10 (Nominating Committee)
- Structure and Process of AdCom
- 1.1 The Chair started the meeting by raising the issue of whether it was possible to go through the transition period with only one representative from each region. PDT suggested that AdCom must begin to look at itself as and eventual council for what organization will emerge out of the transition process and said as a first step it was his opinion that the present membership of AdCom should be expanded to include an additional representative from each region. PP agreed to that suggestion considering the fact some of the region like LACTLD and CENTR already had two representations and making it official would be in the right direction.
- 1.2 NR agreed to the suggestion of an additional member from each region but pointed out that Adcom had had a weakness even when it was with ICANN, having no formal existence. NR said Adcom needed to have a legal personality. He suggested that after adding the alternate representatives, the Adcom must form itself into Steering Committee for whatever organization will be emerging, be it Plan A or Plan B.
- 1.3 PDT affirmed that a change of name is what AdCom was working towards. NR, however, said that it was a little more than just a change of name. NR said the steering committee or whatever name it will be called, will be collectively making critical decisions for the emerging organization. NR emphasized that the legal personality was very essential. NR also said he was raising the issue because his main concern was about liability.
- 1.4 EP said she had a problem with legitimacy for the people involved. In answer to a question on whether being legally appointed should be enough from PDT, EP felt that AdCom and ccTLD was in the middle of no where since DNSO is no more and also torn between different positions: on one side reform preparations and on the other hand ccTLD torn between three situations - remain within ICANN, move to ITU or evolve into something else and work in line with IANA functions.
- 1.5 PDT redefined the legal position of AdCom as moving from a powerless organization in the DNSO to the legal representation of the regional organization with the focus of assisting or managing or informing the reforms to one of the options described by EP. As representative of regional association, PDT is of the view that AdCom has a clear mandate and legitimacy to do what they want to do.
- 1.6 EP said her feel of lack of mandate sterns from the fact that the mandate that put her in office was over.
- 1.7 PDT asked whether the answer was not to go back to the regional associations to renew the mandate.
- 1.8 NR came in to say that PDT and EP were looking at the word "mandate" from two different perspectives.
- 1.9 EP questioned the mandate of AdCom besides organizing discussion amongst ccTLD managers. EP, however, argued that the function of AdCom was changing with proposed expansion of its membership and forming itself into a steering committee which was not consistent with the initial mandate of the Adcom
- 1.10 PP made reference to the decision of AdCom and ccTLD to pull out of DNSO in Shanghai and asked whether the decision was to continue running the organization with the existing structure since he was not present at that discussion. PDT answered by saying that was his view of what happened in Shanghai and that things will continue as before and may even have a new name for ccTLD after the pull out from DNSO.
- 1.11 PDT closed the discussion on process and structure of AdCom by summarizing the position adopted that the size of Adcom be doubled and asking the regional organizations to elect additional members while the review of the role of Adcom is be made online through the discussion in the next three to four weeks.
Action Item #1 8January2003-A
Secretariat to inform Regional TLDs to elect additional members to AdCom and announce and call for suggestions for the review of functions of Adcom
- 2.1 PDT introduced item by referring to the decision to continue and formalize liaison with ICANN after the pullout from DNSO and suggested that EP should continue as Liaison.
- 2.2 EP replied by saying that the need to continue to liaise was legitimate but will prefer to do work with at least another person.
- 2.3 PDT said he agreed to EP.s request, considering the fact that there were three liaison persons when the Names Council was in existence. Since there was no objection for liaison with ICANN, PDT asked for suggest for the number of people to work with EP.
- 2.4 PP pointed out that the role of the liaison person was going to be different. PDT affirmed that position and said the role of keeping Adcom informed about issues in ICANN and vice-versa was what he was interested in continuing the liaison.
- 2.5 EP said ccTLD has to have a factual input.
- 2.6 PDT said two liaisons may be enough for a start and as the volume of work grows, a third liaison may be added.
- 2.7 PP asked a question as to how the additional liaison will be appointed. PDT said he thought it should be an appointment by Adcom but asked whether other on the conference thought an election was necessary. PP said in his opinion, an election was not necessary.
- 2.8 PDT closed the discussion on the item by asking EP if she accepted the position to which question she answered in the affirmative on condition that a second person will be appointed. PDT asked the secretariat to announce that AdCom is about to make an appointment for expression of interest of members in fulfilling the role in four weeks.
Action Item # 2 8January2003-B
Secretariat: Announce appointment of second GNSO liaison person between Adcom and ICANN and call for expression of interest to be responded within 3 .4 weeks.
Current Situation of secretariat
- 3.1 PDT started item by stating that the organization was faced in Shanghai with the problem of B K Kim's withdrawal and the transfer to Bangkok. PDT said in his personal view, the ccTLD was in a process of transition and very minimal disruption as possible, allowing AC to run affairs in the transition, will be in the best interest of organization.
- 3.2 PP said he was happy for AC to run secretariat during transition but expressed concern about how secretariat is being funded. PDT replied by saying he expected ccTLDs to continue to make contribution for the smooth running of the secretariat and asked AC to comment. AC replied that at the point of taking over, an amount of $22,000 was in the Bank account in Korea as reported by BK Kim and that should be sufficient for running the secretariat till Rio in March. He said, however, that if the new secretariat were not appointed by Rio, then members would have to be asked to make contributions.
- 3.3 EP said in view of her experience with the Names Council and Budget Committee, there was insufficient information about the secretariat.s activities as this information will be necessary in setting up the new secretariat. PDT requested the secretariat to prepare a draft work plan to cover activities between now and the Rio meeting online within 10 days. AC agreed to present the information as requested with all resources of secretariat.
Action Item # 3 8January2003-C
Secretariat to prepare draft work plan of activity and funding between now and Rio Meeting within 10 days.
ToR for Secretariat
- 4.1 NR asked whether he was correct in assuming that the ToR for secretariat will be left till Rio in the wake of the discussion under item 3. PDT affirmed the position and said the item will be left subject to AC submitting a draft work plan till Rio.
ccNSO AG Report
- 5.1 PDT requested PP to give the conference update on where the AG was, in particular the problem of little input or response to any of the output of AG.
- 5.2 PP reported that 1st teleconference this year of AG looked at work plan for the near future with goal of finding out recommendation in Mid-February this year which included and took into account comments that has been made on scope, policy development process, membership and council. Now AG looking at how the transition will be like. It.s also expecting comments from colleagues.
- 5.3 PDT reacted to the report by saying experience shows that presentation with diagrams and discussion in face-to-face meetings is a more plausible way to move forward. Regional meeting are more likely to be the best forums to discuss these. PDT asked whether any progress could be made without face-to-face meetings. He was of the view that if these issues were on the agenda of the regional organizations, a better job could be done of it.
- 5.4 PDT raised the point that until what ERC recommendations to the ICANN Board will be and what the Board will say is known, it will be difficult for people to engage.
- 5.5 PP replied by saying that AG cannot predict what will happen and eminent disagreement between AG/ ERC will have been raised at AG meeting and since no such disagreement came up, it can be assumed that the disagreements are non-existent.
- 5.6 PDT asked PP if he had any comment on PDP, the power to make policy.
- 5.7 NR came in to say he had a meeting with his government advisory committee member about three weeks ago and they were pretty unanimous that they would not like to see the registry signing up to be bound by something that will be decided by ICANN without the power of derogation. Current proposal of the PDP is that there will be a second mandate policy that will be binding on the ccSO but it will not be binding if its against local law. NR said the point from his meeting was that something can be against public policy but may not be illegal. In the opinion of NR, individual countries must have the power to enter reservation for particular policy.
- 5.8 PP said NR's comment was a useful comment for NR to submit to AG since the current position to all draft in existence policies will be binding as long as they do not conflict with law application.
- 5.9 PDT asked whether Adcom could do anything more to help the AG.s work?
- 5.10 PP replied by saying members in AG group were doing well in their own capacities. In PP.s opinion more communication was needed in the regional group and confirmed that Latin America was doing well in this respect and wanted to know the situation in Europe and Asia?
- 5.11 PDT said in AP, it was not happening. EP said in Europe there will have meeting in CENTR for Legal and Regulatory group in Stockholm on 20th January 2003 to discuss policy and new bylaws and to provide some recommendation to AG.
AG/ERC Response and Amsterdam meeting
- 6.1 PDT asked whether anything came out of the Amsterdam meeting to AG.
- 6.2 PP replied that he was not at the Amsterdam meeting and will not be able to say whether anything transpired.
- 6.3 EP briefed the conference on the informal meeting of the ccTLD in Amsterdam. PDT asked EP to circulate the notes of that meeting via e-mail.
Action Item # 4 8January2003-D
EP to circulate notes of informal meeting in Amsterdam to Adcom members
ITU meeting in Geneva and ccSO Acceptance/Plan B
- 7.1 PDT asked about what the plans were for the ITU Geneva meeting
- 7.2 NR said he was doing a paper for the ITU meeting on the relationship between the registry and the government of the Channel Island.
ICANN Budget Group Committee
- 8.1 PDT open discussion on this item by stating that there was a request by Stuart to have three people nominated to the budget committee and opened it up for discussion and contribution from the conference. PDT asked whether PP needed more time to arrive at a position.
- 8.2 PP said he asked his colleagues in LA but had mixed answers. While some thought that the presence there has a positive impact, others thought it was dangerous because the organization risks losing more than gaining being there. PP said there has been no position taken yet on the issue but he has sent a reminder to his colleagues that a position needs to be taken on this.
- 8.3 EP said if the Amsterdam meeting was considered as a European meeting with other region's input, then the position was that finance should be decided by ccNSO and ccTLD themselves. It was decided that ccTLD will not participate in the budget and will discontinue with the scheme of 35% of finance because it is no longer relevant.
- 8.4 PP abstained from a position that PDT stated about the ICANN budget group that ccTLD will participate in the budget group through ccNSO and will not nominate any members directly to the group.
- 8.5 On the question of an Adcom position on ICANN budget committee, EP suggested that a diplomatic letter of proposal be written to ICANN explaining that what is more important is the formation of ccNSO and in the transition period, the initial funding arrangements are shelved in favour of allowing the ccTLD to come up with a reasonable contribution. PDT agreed to draft a letter and circulate to Adcom members for reviewing before sending to ICANN.
Action Item # 5 8January2003-E
PDT to write a letter to ICANN on the issues of ICANN Budget group to be reviewed first by AdCom members
- 9.1 PDT asked AC why this item was included in the agenda.
- 9.2 AC replied by saying in the last month alone, three redelegations have been made by ICANN without the knowledge of ccTLD Secretariat and ccTLD got to know of these only as ICANN announced then. In the view of AC, there should be a consultation process within ccTLD before such a redelegation is made.
- 9.3 PDT requested that an online discussion process be initiated on the issue by the secretariat.
Action Item #6 8January2003-F
Secretariat to generate discussion on consultation process on redelegation issues.
- 10.1 PDT refreshed members about the existing position that ccTLD nominate one person to the nominating committee of 8 and asked whether the number was acceptable to Adcom and whether ccTLD need to nominate someone to the position.
- 10.2 EP said the number was part of new ICANN bylaws but PDT earlier protests had been made about the number being too small. PDT also suggested that one of the thing ccTLD could do was not to take up the seat in protest and the other being to take it in and nominate someone to take it. PP had an objection to that protest position since ccTLD will be alienating ccTLD from the process in doing so. PDT said his personal view was to get involved and change things from within. He also suggested that members get back to their regions to form positions on this issue.
- 10.3 PDT asked a question on how a nomination could be made before the ccNSO is formed. PDT said he heard that the Board was preparing to act as ccTLD.s agent to nominate some for ccTLD, which he thought, was
- 10.4 EP suggested that if Adcom had a feedback from ccTLD members that they preferred to have ICANN structure, and then someone could be nominated to the nominating committee to provide the feed that is needed in the new emerging structure, emphasizing that nominating someone now will be pre-mature. PDT requested members to discuss this in the regions and positions taken.
Action Item #7 8January2003-G
Adcom to go back to the regions to generate discussion and take positions on appointment to the nominating committee and related issues.
Any Other Business
- 11.1 PDT brought up the issue of whether there was a sufficient agenda for a meeting in Rio de Janeiro during the ICANN meeting.
- 11.2 EP suggested a different approach to the Rio meeting. She said the current agenda for the meeting could be considered as the meetings agenda and regional associations to discuss and adopt positions on those that they feel are necessary before Rio.
- 11.3 EDP however suggested that alternately, members may arrive in Rio a day or two and the draft laws and positions posted before the meeting for people to consider.
- 11.4 EP also suggested that since some ccTLD managers might be traveling to Geneva, a small meeting could be held to source for material for the Rio meeting.
- 11.5 PP also suggested that the AG's work could be completed in February, allowing some time for study before the meeting. PDT wanted to find out if the meeting could be treated as a LACTLD regional meeting rather than a global one. PP asked about the name server-training workshop in pipeline, which was confirmed by AC as a Spanish training but however said that it could be cancelled if the meeting was not coming on. PDT requested members of Adcom to discuss with regions whether there was sufficient agenda for the meeting in Rio in the regions.
Action Items # 8 8January2003-H
AdCom members to discuss with regions whether there is sufficient agenda for a meeting in Rio.
The conference was adjourned at 11:30 GMT
© ccTLD Managers
Page updated : 2003-07-20 19:45:14