World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names

Yokohama Plenary Meeting 12 July 2000

 Home | Meetings | AdCom | ccTLD | Participants 

DRAFT Report of ccTLD Plenary Meeting

12 July, 2000 (13:00-14:30)

Chairperson: Kilnam Chon
Reporteur:Kanchana Kanchanasut, ccTLD Secretariat

The Chairman announced that there would be a special meeting on ICANN Status Quo paper later in the evening at 19:30-21:00 in Rm 2906, Intercontinental Hotel. Meeting with GAC would be held at 9:00-10:30, Jul 13 on the Best Practices and Re/delegation paper in the Intercontinental Ballroom East. GAC invited AdCom and NC members to its meeting at the Pacifico at 9:00-10:15 on July 14. The rest of the agenda of 13 and 14 July remained unchanged.

1. Cairo meeting minutes review

The Chairman asked the members to review the Cairo meeting minutes on their own and comment or make any corrections.

2. Yokohama Meeting schedule update

12 July 2000
1300-1430: Plenary Meeting
1500-1600: ICANN services WG
1600-1800: Best Practices & Re-delegation WG

13 July 2000 InterContinental Ball room East
0900-1030: Best Practices & Re/delegation WG (GAC invited)
1030-1200: Funding WG meeting
1300-1800: Plenary Meeting

14 July 2000
0730-0900: AdCom Meeting (Intercontinental 2906)
0900-1015: GAC meeting with AdCom (Pacifico)

3. Working Group Status Report

3.1 ICANN Services WG

The session was chaired by Nii Quainor and co-chaired by Eva Fr?lich.

WG Chairman, Nii Quaynor, reported that currently the main topic on ICANN services had to do with the root servers where there ccTLD set high expectations and expressed the need of guaranteed services by ICANN. The WG chair raised a question to the meeting to study the documents and review particular elements of the WG report and add what other services should be asked for from ICANN. For example, should ICANN documents be translated to local languages. Eva Fr?lich explicitly asked for more input to the work.

The following comments were made discussing about the root-servers: Bill Semic of dot nu mentioned that taking the IETF-process into consideration, turn-around for modifications needed to be defined. Fay Howard of CENTR pointed out that CENTR was working on a service document while Herbert Vitzthum of dot at said there was still a open question when the root will be transferred to ICANN from the DoC. Sabine Dolderer of dot de commented about documenting where the servers were placed. An open discussion about where the servers should be placed in the future was sought. Carsten Shiefner of dot de said that DNS-sec should be also in the root otherwise there wouldn't be any sense in having DEN-sec for the various TLDs. Pierre Ouedraogo of dot bf said that turnaround time for responses from IANA would depend on changes in the DNS.

The additional demands about other services than the root were also
mentioned such as
        - facilitating the constituency meetings with copies, rooms etc
(Sabine Dolderer of dot de);
        - policy issues need to be documented, Funding, relationship to the
database, structuring so that the IETF-work is forwarded to the constituency
(by Dennis Jennings of CENTR);
         - Complaint mechanism, regular polling that the constituency
mechanism still exist (by Peter Dengate-Trush of dot nz);
        - Statistics - hostname, domain names etc (by Elisabeth Porteneuve
of dot fr)
        - A synchronising with our customers demands on us (by dot cy).

The meeting further discussed that more input to the report was needed where detailed technical requirements needed to be worked out perhaps in consultation with the root server consortium and the next draft should be presented at LA meeting. The importance of listing out other services such as translations of documents was emphasized. A question was raised regarding the relationship between ICANN and the root consortium which was clarified that it was unclear. A suggestion was made later on that we should come up with our own technical parameters ourselves.

As a summary of the session, the chair and co-chair informed that the comments made during the meeting would be worked into the document as soon as possible. The document will then be sent out to the constituency for further comments and both chaairs hope that there would be more comments than the first time.

3.2 Best Practices and Re/delegation

Antony van Couvering, working group chair, reported to the meeting that two documents had been circulated. One was Best Practices document which was relatively stable now and another was on the issue of Re/delegation which still needs more iterations. Both documents would be brought for discussions with GAC and the ICANN staffs. The main principle of the Re/delegation issue was that if the ccTLD was doing a good job, it should not be stripped off its duty which was contradicting to the GAC=92s view where a government did have its rights to redelegate the ccTLD as it saw fit. The underlying reason for this was for the stability of the Internet when changes of governments took place. The chair proposed a basis for compromising with GAC documents where the need for local opinion or feedbacks from the local community should be in place of government deciding on the issue alone, where local community meant the local Internet community including users.

3.3 ccTLD Funding to ICANN

Peter de Blanc, Chairman of the ICANN funding Working Group, reported that a spreadsheet on various funding models had been circulated. In principle, the WG opposed to the concept of Domain Name tax but ccTLDs should determine by themself what should be their contribution to ICANN. The WG had put out a proposition to the ccTLD community with all the data from the different models and asked if they agreed with a self-selecting band process. If so, ccTLDs were asked to select their own bands. But so far there were about 10 votes, of which five had selected bands much higher than what they supposed to pay under the ICANN model. The Chairman stressed the importance of ccTLD funding to ICANN because ICANN had so far received support from gTLDs only, making it US centric. The Chairman had urged members to participate in funding by pledging either via e-mail or fill-in form in this meeting. Concerns on how ICANN came up with the figures for its funding was expressed. It was explained that the figures were obtained at the time when ICANN could pull the zone file information which had now been stopped. It was suggested the number of bands should also be defined for the purpose of domain name counting.

3.4 Bylaws

Peter de Blanc, Chairman of the Bylaws Working Group, reported that the WG solicited documents from various people and sources and had put them together. The Bylaws had now been put to the mailing list for additional comments and feedbacks . The Chair explained the need to solidify everything to be presented to the Board of Director meeting so that the ccTLD Constituency would be formally recognized. Kilnam Chon reminded the meeting that there was a problem in scheduling because the Name Council election where ccTLD candidates should be nominated. The election is to be held by early September, thus it is important to at least agree on the Bylaws document at the moment and finalize by voting soon.

4. ccTLD Secretariat Setup and Funding

Peter de Blanc, Chairman of the AdCom, reported to the meeting that a call for proposals to form ccTLD Interim Secretariat were sent after AdCom facilitated the secretariat selection process. AdCom believed that a face-to-face meeting should not be used to decide on important issue because only a small number of ccTLDs could attend the meeting. Two proposals were received: one from New Zealand and another from AFNIC + AP linked up with Latin America and Africa. Voting was conducted on the mailing list where the AFNIC and AP proposal has received higher score. It was made clear by AdCom that when the permanent office had been chosen, the interim office would release all their jobs and responsibilities to the permanent Secretariat.

AdCom had found that more outreach activities was needed for the ccTLD Constituency and that would be one of the main tasks of the Secretariat. It was viewed that the Secretariat required full time operation with all the translations and outreach activities. For the sustainability of the operation it was proposed that 5% ccTLD contribution to ICANN would be used to fund the interim Secretariat and that 10% of ccTLD contribution (Approx. USD 140,000 per annum) to ICANN could fund one-year operation of the Secretariat office.The secretariat funds can also be used as grants for people who are unable to participate in meetings due to financial reasons.

It was pointed out by members that some people were not on the mailing list and hence not aware of the call for vote. Fay Howard, who is maintaining the ccTLD mailing lists at CENTR for the time being, pointed out that the ccTLD Discuss list was never intended to be used for voting as only those who want to be subscribed are on it. All ccTLD managers were subscribed to a separate mailing lists for last year's Name Council elections but promised that it would be a low traffic list used only for election notices and calls to vote. The ccTLD-Secretariat should be used to contact ccTLD managers while ccTLD-discuss be used for general discussions only. The Interim Secretariat is to revise all the mailing lists and make them as up-to-date as possible. A vote of thank to Fay Howard for handling the mailing lists and the Website was proposed and adopted by the meeting.

The permanent Secretariat issue will be discussed tomorrow (July 13) and decided at the next physical meeting which will be held in LA where the scheme for the permanent Secretariat will be refined over these five months.

5. Multilingual Domain Names

Zita Wenzel informed the meeting that IETF welcomed technical discussions in order to achieve an easy and correct solution for the Multilingual Domain Names issue where two Websites, and, had been recommended for those who would like to follow the development. Both sites are linked from

The Chairman informed the meeting that there was a workshop on Multilingual Domain Names next Monday (July 17) at the Pacifico. Chairman raised the question whether a working group on this International Domain Names was appropriate. Jaap Akkerhuis strongly recommended that rather than form another working group, those who were interested should join the IDN working group of IETF which were open for anyone to join and contribute. The WG was expected to be informational. Reasons why multilingual domain name was an ICANN issue were because there were questions such as whether a multilingual domain name should be ccTLD and gTLD; and whether there should be a one-to-one mapping of multilingual domain names to present domain names or not. Thus it was DNSO who would need to work on this eventually. It was proposed that an informational WG be set up for 6 months. Discussions on appropriateness of the WG and the WG formation decision procedure took place. Some members argued that proper decision procedures like for the case of Interim Secretariat should be adhered to while it was argued that this WG was not a policy recommendation body but informational only and no funding commitment involved, hence should not require such a lengthy formation process. It was decided that a brief discussion paper would be prepared for discussion at tomorrow (July13) meeting and put on the mailing list for voting within the next couple of weeks. It was reminded that time slots were needed to be allocated for this multilingual domain name WG formation as well as the status quo paper discussion.

6. UDRP for ccTLD

With increasing disputes, information exchanges and guidelines were needed by ccTLDs as well even though consensus on this issue had been reached for gTLD=92s. It was pointed out that having a general guideline for ccTLDs would be a very difficult task because of the different nature of the ccTLDs where some ccTLDs were operating under unrestricted rules. Several members informed the meeting that they had either consulted WIPO or lawyers on re-designing their dispute resolution policies. The Chairman asked the meeting if we should have a WG on this topic and a workshop in the near future or not. The call was responded that the issue be addressed by the ccTLD Constituency. The Chairman suggested that a BOF be held for those interested in the issue and that the issue would be revisited tomorrow (July 13) afternoon. The ccTLD-discuss list will be used to seek out if a workshop on UDRP is held in November 2000 during ICANN Meeting.

7. ICANN Status Quo Paper

It was announced that ICANN staffs would discuss on this paper with ccTLD Constituency members at 7:30 PM. CENTR representative, Dennis Jennings, informed the meeting that CENTR executive had sent out a letter to ICANN Chairman of the BOD that CENTR recognized the Status Quo paper but expressing disappointment at the fact it had been published too late for meaningful discussion and consideration before the Yokohama meeting and advised to have copies of the paper circulated after coffee break. Antony van Couvering stated that IATLD had also put out its comments on the ICANN Website. It was however pointed out that the paper was not intended to be final but to be studied only.

8. AOB

It was raised whether or not an issue on new gTLD should be discussed by ccTLD Constituency. The Chairman proposed to put it on agenda for discussion tomorrow.

The meeting adjourned at 14:30.

© ccTLD Managers
Page updated : 2002-09-14 21:11:58