World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names

Administration Committee teleconference minutes

 Home | Meetings | AdCom | ccTLD | Participants 

12 Mar 2003 at 20:00 UTC

Chaired by: Patricio Poblete

(Written by Eric Akumiah and edited by 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)
Bernard Turcotte (alternate, N. American region) (noted as BT)
Elisabeth Porteneuve (noted as EP)

Yann Kwok (African Region)(noted as YK)
Oscar Robles Garay (Latin America - Caribbean Region)(Noted as ORG)
Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah (Asia - Pacific Region)(Noted as RKN)
Abhisak Chulya (Executive Director, ccTLD Secretariat) (noted as AC)


Call to meeting

The chair, PP, called the conference to order and said he would have preferred to have the co-chair, ORG, who had agreed to be present on the conference but was not on the conference yet. He called for other items to the agenda, which mainly was to discuss the agenda for the Rio ccTLD meeting. The situation at the secretariat in the light of Abhisak's resignation, and the draft rules for AdCom and Secretariat emanating from EP as coming from CENTR as previously communicated to AdCom by CENTR General Manager in her mail to AdCom were added to the agenda. EP explained that the document was not necessarily related to the statement from CENTR and was from her own initiative to have a clear-cut definition of the roles of the AdCom and the secretariat as a newly elected AdCom member for reference purposes. PDT added two items to the agenda: appointment of additional GNSO liaison and a ccTLD public outreach meeting in Rio based on suggestions from people who had approached him on the subject.

  1. Rio ccTLD Meeting Agenda

    • 1.1 The chair suggested to the conference that the draft agenda posted by the secretariat on the web (Annex A) could be used as the basis for the discussion on this item to which suggestion the conference agreed. The chair read out the items on Day one and opened the floor for discussion. BT said a discussion on the ccNSO was a good starting point for the meetings because members would like to know where they stood with the ccNSO. There was an agreement to this point. EP wanted to know whether it was necessary to devote the whole day on the ccNSO issues. The chair also asked whether the panel for the discussion had agreed to take part in the meeting. To this question, PDT said he had been communicating with AC in forming the draft agenda and the items were just suggestion that needed to be approved by AdCom and worked on. He said he suggested those two speakers from two geographic regions, who in his opinion were excellent speakers for the topic but said no contacts had been made yet. He said he had also suggested session leaders for each session, to arrange for speakers and work with secretariat to have all papers prepared to ease the burden on the meeting chairs. The chair said he felt it would be more appropriate to start the meeting with a summary of what was being proposed for the ccNSO and move the panel discussion to a time later in the day during the discussion on the issues arising from the formation of the ccNSO. NR and EP agreed with the chair. EP said she recall that there were eight (8) members of the AG originating from the ccTLD constituency and would like to see all these people join the panel if they are present in Rio. PDT who was proposed on the draft agenda as session leader accepted to take up the task and said he could take charge of the agenda and work out something suitable for the day. PP asked whether non-ccTLD members on AG would also participate in the discussion. In answer to that question, PDT said a first internal session might exclude non-ccTLD AG members since it would be for internal education purposes but a later more external session could include anyone who would be willing to be part and whose contribution might be useful to provide external influences and opinions in the decision making process. NR suggested that presentations that could start off debates, like a presentation from the ITU meeting, be made on the first day. The chair replied by saying it was a good idea but different presentations had to be made on different days. NR said his suggestion was because of the bearing the Geneva meeting had with the ccNSO formation. He also recalled that at the ITU meeting, there was a participant from an Arab country who made a point that 25 Arab governments had taken a position that root servers should not remain US-controlled. From this perspective, NR suggested that it would be better to break the ccNSO discussion into two, and have the second and final discussion after most of the related presentations and discussions had been made, preferably towards the later part of the three-day meeting. PDT agreed that it would be appropriate to make a resolution towards the end of the three days. The chair was also in agreement to the fact that a decision should be taken at the end of the meetings and that it could be part of the communiqué. PP asked whether there was any plan to meet the whole Assistance Group (AG) during the Rio meeting. In answer to that, PDT said so far the only plan was on the proposed panel for the discussion on ccNSO. BT said at some point in Day one, there should be a meeting between the ccTLD members and the whole AG either as a panel or arranged meeting. PDT agreed as session leader to find a way to add this concern to the day's program. The chair summarized the position on the first part of Day one by saying that it could be devoted to an exhaustive discussion on the ccNSO as an ICANN process while the other options are discussed on the other days and that PDT, the session leader for ccNSO session, arrange the activities and speakers for the day.
    • 1.2 The chair asked whether it was appropriate to strike out the special resolution item at the close of day one. To this question PDT explained that agenda item was in relationship to whether or not ccTLDs wanted to take part in the Nominating Committee before the formation of the ccNSO. He said an invitation had been extended to ccTLDs to nominate a member to the Nominating Committee. PP said invitations had been sent out to individual ccTLDs. He suggested that it should be left for individual ccTLD to respond to this request and that some individual ccTLDs may have already responded to this invitation. EP said at the moment, wwTLD was in a strong bargaining position with ICANN concerning ccNSO. To accept the membership to Nominating Committee implied ccTLDs accepted the ccNSO and ICANN, which was not the case. She suggested that Nominating Committee be considered as part of the whole ccNSO process for a stronger bargain. To EP, this transcends to explaining to all ccTLDs at the Rio meeting that the Nominating Committee should not be considered in isolation but together with ccNSO and decision taken collectively and in line with ccNSO issue. PDT said he agreed with EP that wwTLD was in a negotiating position with ICANN on ccNSO. He said one of the things the ccNSO had to do once formed was to appoint someone to the Nominating Committee and to talk about an appointment to the Nominating Committee before the conclusion on the ccNSO process was putting the cart before the horse. EP added that the ICANN reform process was creating three support organizations and it was her opinion that, if time would permit, a slot be put on the agenda for the other support organizations, the third SO in the ICANN reform process, to be invited to make inputs or give feedback as part of information to ccTLD managers during the ccNSO discussion. PDT accepted this request and said he would try to add an item on this to the Day one agenda for this kind of feedback. PDT then asked what would happen if the Board come up to say that they had consulted with ccTLDs and were acting as the agents of the ccTLDs to appoint a member to the Nominating Committee before the formation of ccNSO. He said the position of ccTLD should not be that of stopping the Board from doing anything but rather what ccTLD was going to do about it. The chair asked whether anybody was familiar with the provisions in the bylaws in the transition process to which question PDT said the board was going to act as agents to ccTLD and appoint someone. BT said he felt putting this issue on Day one was not appropriate and it would be much better to put this issue close to the end of the ccTLD meetings in Rio and in line with the general consideration of whether to join the ccNSO or not. PDT said the discussion on Nominating Committee could flow with the ccNSO discussions but the resolution could be shifted to the third day after all the other topics had been discussed. The conference then agreed that Day one should be devoted to the discussion of ccNSO and related issues but the resolution on this issue should be put to Day three.

      Action Item #1 12March2003-A PDT to take up session chair for ccNSO discussion and draw up agenda and setup ccTLD members-only AG discussion panel for an education session as well as an all-inclusive discussion panel to include all AG members and Other Supporting Organization members for an open session

    • 1.3 The chair read out the draft agenda for the morning section of the Day two (Annex A) and opened it to the floor for discussion. EP asked whether speakers had already been found for the review of GAC principles. PDT explained that the review was to look at what ccTLDs thought of the GAC principles rather than the principles itself. He informed the conference that APTLD had voted on the formation of an internal group to take this forward. He also said when the GAC principles was first published, a number of ccTLDs were outraged and several presentations made include an exhaustive discussion on a presentation made by Anthony van Couvering in Yokohama but because the Board never accepted then and posted them for comments, there has been no formal presentation of the point of view of wwTLD as a body. NR also made a point that even though ICANN did not post the principles for public comments, the GAC kept using them referring to ICANN following the GAC principles. PDT added that a session leader had to be appointed to pull up speakers to deal with this item on the agenda. EP said there was no time for further consultation and an appropriate person should be found by the AdCom to be session leader. NR suggested that the session leader should be someone who does not have to be neutral but should be able to draw out all opinions and suggested Willie Black as session leader in view of the way he chaired the Geneva ITU meeting. PP said he thought the CENTR chair Paul Kane could do the job. EP said someone who had the freedom and sensitivity to chair the session was what was needed since GAC principle was quite a delicate issue, supposed to be from people appointed by governments or in government positions and said she supported any of the two proposals but since Willie Black was supposed to chair the session on ccIANA, Paul Kane would be the person for session chair. The conference finally agreed to the suggestion that Paul Kane should chair the session. PP (chair) agreed to inform Paul Kane.

      Action Item #2 12March2003-B PP to inform Paul Kane about chairing GAC Principles review session

    • 1.4 The chair asked whether NR could make a report on the ITU meeting in Geneva. NR said he was willing to do it but he felt Willie Black was the most appropriate person to do it as the chair for the ITU meeting. PDT suggested that NR take up the leadership of that session while Willie Black and Richard Hill made reports on the ITU meeting. NR agreed to chair the session. PDT said NR, as session leader should try to get other speakers with divergent views to speak as well. NR said an hour would be appropriate for the ITU report. The members on the conference agreed to the suggestion by the chair that the session after the coffee break, on "presentation by experts on government relationship" should be slashed of in favour of the discussion on the GAC principles.

      Action Item #3 12March2003-C NR to take up chair for ITU report and organize presentations from Willie Black and others.

    • 1.5 The chair raised the next item on the proposed agenda, which was the meeting with the GAC. He said he wanted to be brought up to speed with the discussion on the format for the meeting. PDT briefed the conference on the correspondence with GAC secretariat and ccTLD's position that the three quarters of an hour originally proposed by GAC was inadequate for a meaningful discussion. He said that Christopher Wilkinson of the GAC secretariat had communicated to him a slightly longer session (75 minutes) from 11:15 to 12:30 local time and an informal session on the night of Monday, 24 March 2003 over a cup of coffee. BT said some pressure had been put on the GAC through his GAC representative and other sources and that had resulted in the additional time slot added. NR said his impression from his discussion with the GAC chairman was that GAC was quite sympathetic to the ccTLDs these days. PDT also added that the GAC was expecting to have discussions with representatives rather than a workshop with all ccTLD members, judging from his last correspondence with Christopher Wilkinson in which he was requesting for the list of ccTLD representatives and what they were going to talk about. On the question of content posed by PDT, several issues deemed important to be discussed and centered on the GAC's view of ccNSO was brought to the floor by members on the conference. The question of GAC's view of the ccTLDs requirement for IANA function and the continued US government control of it, suggested by EP and supported by NR, also came up as a possible issue to be discussed with GAC. EP qualified the suggestion by saying that it would be best dealt with if it sent to GAC in writing days before the meeting. In answer to BT's question of whether the meeting was going to be an open or closed, PDT said that could be determined by the issues to be discussed but NR was of the opinion that it should be an open meeting. PDT suggested that EP take up the leadership of the GAC meeting session and develop a few possible discussion questions for the meeting for discussion by AdCom members before the GAC meeting. EP agreed to take the position. PP asked whether there were any liaisons appointed by ccTLDs for GAC. PDT answered by saying that regional workshops were supposed to have been arranged to work out how ccTLDs were going to relate to GAC but so far nothing had happened and there was no liaison position for GAC. PP then said liaisons needed to be appointed for GAC. NR said that was to be decided at the meeting in Rio rather than by AdCom. PDT said the answer to this question depends on whether ccTLDs opted for ccNSO. In answer to the question whether it was not good idea for the questions to be generated from the floor at a GAC pre-meeting in Rio, PDT suggested that the two main question suggested be posted on the list as what AdCom had come up with and ask for more suggestions.

      Action Item #4 12March2003-D EP to chair the GAC meeting session and prepare discussions questions for online discussion and pre-meeting before the GAC meeting

    • 1.6 The chair ran through the items for the afternoon of Day two. The item immediately after lunch was a report on the discussion with the GAC, which was subject to whether the meeting was open or closed. The next item after that was the secretariat report and direction for new secretariat. This, the chair said was an issue that needed to be discussed in the conference in view of AC's resignation. The chair said the issues of secretariat could be discussed in full after the discussion on agenda for the Rio meeting had been completed. PDT said the issue with the direction of the secretariat was tied with the ccNSO formation. EP said it was her opinion that the secretariat issues should be viewed independently of the ccNSO formation. She referred to her proposals, which she said had reference only to administrative roles of AdCom and the secretariat. She said whatever option ccTLD would take, there would always be the need to organize meetings and write out minutes and maintain the website as well as manage the mailing list. NR said irrespective of the position of the ccTLD, it would be appropriate to setup a legal entity to run secretariat. This, he said, does not have to be wwTLD or ccNSO but something that the wwTLD or ccNSO can outsource the secretariat services to and have proper oversight in the matters of finance and management. PDT said the only problem would be what kind of body wwTLD was before signing such a contract. EP said she does not see wwTLD become a legal entity but said she sought to suggest the use of the regional bodies on a rotational basis as legal entities to support the secretariat for the purposes of opening bank accounts for instance. PDT called the meeting to order and said the detailed discussion could be made under the conference agenda item on situation with secretariat. NR proposed EP to be in charge with the session on secretariat and the conference agreed to this proposal. EP accepted to be session leader and asked the secretariat to present the report including the financial status before the end of the week to allow 10 days of posting to members prior to the meeting in Rio. The chair agreed to contact the secretariat to publish the report in advance.

      Action Item #5 12March2003-E EP to chair the Secretariat Report and direction of secretariat sessions

    • 1.7 The chair introduced the Rio meeting agenda for Day three. The conference agreed to the choice of Young Eum Lee as the session chair for the IDN session. PDT offered to contact her to be session chair and make all the necessary arrangements for the session.

      Action Item #6 12March2003-F PDT to inform Young Eum Lee to chair and organize IDN report and discussion sessions

    • 1.8 The chair brought up the session on IANA function. Willie Black was accepted by the conference as being the most suitable person to lead this session.

      Action Item #7 12March2003-G AdCom to inform Willie Black about chairing and organizing the ccIANA session.

    • 1.9 The final item on Day three was the communiqué draft session. NR suggested that at the beginning of the day's first or second plenary session, a five minute item be put on the Agenda to select a drafting committee to work on the final communiqué during the first communiqué drafting session while the second drafting session would be a plenary session of the ccTLD communiqué finalization session where a general discussion of the draft communiqué produced by the drafting committee would be made. PDT also suggested that all resolutions would be made in the finalization session, which was agreed by members on the conference.

  2. Situation with Secretariat

    • 2.1 The chair brought up the situation at the secretariat. He mentioned AC's resignation from the secretariat effective after the meeting in Rio rather than immediately. He also said AdCom may have to find a way to run the secretariat after Rio. PDT said AdCom would have to work with the assumption that ccTLD was going to need another person to run the secretariat after Rio. He also said there was a need for a total overhaul of the structure of the secretariat. He added that some of the issues raised such as a poor mandate from AdCom to secretariat were valid points. EP said she was not comfortable with the fact the ccTLD account was now a private account after the secretariat moved to Bangkok from Korea where it was a Korea NIC account. She said there was also no information on funds and this cannot continue. This situation, she said, as an AdCom member would indicate acceptance and that was not acceptable to her. In that respect she said the issue of whom can speak for whom had to be dealt with as well as finding an idea without setting a legal entity because AdCom does not have the means to do it. That, she said, was the rational for her proposal - Draft rules for AdCom and Secretariat by EP. PDT disagreed with the idea of using the regional organizations since in his opinion only CENTR was in the position to support the secretariat. EP said the regional bodies would only be referenced for such things as opening bank accounts and not necessarily be asked to run the secretariat. EP said that CENTR as regional organization is willing to participate in ccTLD Secretariat effort, in providing for stable and long term infrastructure, i.e. hosting a server with its website and mailing list. That infrastructure service is totally independent from the person(s) providing Secretariat staff support, who would have a total access and control to pages. CENTR is not willing to take the duty of a person providing Secretariat staff support, CENTR view is that such person should be a neutral staff at the service to the WWTLD. CENTR welcome and supports efforts of the ccTLD (in particular African) to built up their regional organization. PDT mentioned that there had been interests shown by different groups including Sue Leader with support from Internet NZ and Chris Disspain from .au to run secretariat service for wwTLD. The chair wrapped up the discussion by saying that much discussion on the secretariat will be done in Rio.

  3. GNSO Liaison Appointment

    • 3.1 PDT put forward the name of Young Eum Lee from the APTLD to be appointed as a second liaison for GNSO in addition to EP in advance of the Rio meeting to help her establish herself before the meeting. The conference supported this nomination because the second candidate, Jeff Neuman, was now sitting on the council as elected by the registry constituency and would not be an appropriate candidate.

  4. ccTLD Public Outreach at Rio

    • 4.1 PDT said he had been approached by a number of people including people from ISPs, European GAC and the UK ISOC who were keen on seeing ccTLDs remain in ICANN and wanted to support ccTLDs explain their differences and problems faced with ccNSO to have an open ccTLD meeting on the evening of Sunday, 23 March to explain who the ccTLDs were, the diversities within the ccTLDs and why ccTLD had taken the position they took on the ccNSO. PP asked if PDT could take up the task of organizing such a meeting to which he agreed but wanted to know who the speakers for such a meeting would be.

      Action Item #8 12March2003-H PDT to arrange for speakers and agenda for ccTLD public outreach meeting in Rio

  5. AOB

    • 5.1 BT suggested that a single technical presentation on ENUM should be inserted into the three-day agenda for the Rio ccTLD meeting. There was a unanimous acceptance of the idea. EP said she was aware of the fact that the Polish were in advance of ENUM project and Andrzej Bartosiewicz from the Polish registry had made some presentation to CENTR and was an excellent candidate to make the presentation. She said she would contact him to make a presentation on ENUM at the ccTLD meeting in Rio.

      Action Item #9 12March2003-I EP to contact Andrzej Bartosiewicz to make a presentation on ENUM

    • 5.2 The chair wanted to know if there could be an AdCom face-to-face meeting in Rio. PDT said there used to be AdCom meetings before the main ccTLD meeting but because it was poorly attended, it was stopped. He said, however, that it would be good to re-start it in Rio. A suggestion was made for a meeting on the night of Saturday 23 March 2003, which was accepted.
    • 5.3 PDT asked about what was going to be discussed at the GAC informal meeting on Monday evening. PP said the ccNSO and GAC principle appears to be issues would be extensively discussed in Rio and could be a subject of the meeting. PDT also suggested the "Delegation Change" of ccTLD managers was one big issue that could also be discussed. He suggested an arbitration tribunal with representation from ccTLD, ICANN, GAC and other representations. EP said some GAC members had specifically told her in the past that they would not make any such judgment on "delegation change". The conference agreed that the Monday evening informal session would have "delegation change" as its main agenda

The meeting was adjourned at 21:45 GMT to reconvene on Tuesday, 18 March at 20:00GMT

Annex A - Original draft Agenda for ccTLD meeting in Rio

Day 1 - Sunday 23 March 2003:

Plenary Session 1 - Session Leader: Peter Dengate Thrush
09:00 - 10:30 am Discussion of the ccNSO Assistance Group Report
10:30 - 11:00am Coffee Break - Sponsored by Afilias
11:00 - 12:30pm Discussion of the ccNSO Assistance Group Report (Cont'd)
Panel: Bart Boswinkel and Chris Disspain (AG members)
1. Membership (and relationship to contracts with ICANN, and funding of ICANN)
2. Structure ( members,regional assoc's, Council, "outsiders" and election of ICANN Board members)
3. Policy Development Process (initiating, process, majority voting, conflict with the Board)
4. Staffing (including Policy Development Manager, Secretariat)
5. Transition Arrangements
12:30 - 14:00 Lunch Break Sponsored by
14:00 - 15:30 Discussion of the ccNSO (continued)
15:30 - 16:00 Coffee Break Sponsored by Afilias
16:00 - 16:45 Regional position on Nominating Committee
16:45 - 17:30 Special Resolution for voting by ccTLD members

Day 2- Monday 24 March 2003:

Plenary Session 2- Session Leader: (someone from .no)
09:00 - 09:45 GAC Principles - Review
09:45 - 10:30 Report on ITU Meeting in Geneva
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee Break - Sponsored by
11:00 - 11:45 Presentation by experts on government relationship
11:45 - 12:30 Meeting with GAC by appointed representatives from ccTLD members
12:30 - 14:00 Lunch Break Sponsored by
14:00 - 15:30 Report from GAC meeting
15:30 - 16:00 Coffee Break Sponsored by
16:00 - 16:45 Secretariat Report
16:45 - 17:30 Direction for New Secretariat

Day 3- Tuesday 25 March 2003:

Plenary Session 3 - Session Leader: Dr. Y. E. Lee
09:00 - 09:45 Report on ccTLD IDN TF Workshop by Dr. YE Lee
09:45 - 10:30 IDN Review and Updates (Presentations)
10:30 - 10:00 Coffee Break sponsored by

Plenary Session 4 - Session Leader: Dr. Willie Black
11:00 - 11:45 Solicitation on Operation of IANA Functions by DOC
11:45 - 12:30 ccIANA project (Plan B)
12:30 - 14:00 Lunch Break sponsored by
14:00 - 15:30 ccTLD Communiqué Drafting Session
15:30 - 16:00 Coffee Break sponsored by
16:00 - 17:30 ccTLD Communiqué Drafting Session (cont'd)
17:30 Closing

© ccTLD Managers
Page updated : 2003-07-20 20:26:21