13 July, 2000 13:30-18:00
Intercontinental Ballroom East,
Chairman: Kilnam Chon
Reporteur: Kanchana Kanchanasut
1. Roll Call
Chaiman asked Secretariat how many ccTLD managers represent here in this meeting for the past two days. The unofficial number of ccTLD managers is 45.
2. Agenda Update
3. Plenary Meeting (7/12/00) Minutes Review
Draft Report was ready and sent to all AdCom members for comments.
4. Working Group Status Reports
4.1 ICANN Service
WG Chairman complained of lack of ccTLD's participations. CENTR representative reported to the meeting that, in CENTR's practice, physical meetings were necessary to finalize consensus.
4.2 Best Practices and Re/delegation
The WG chairman reported that he would revise the Best Practices and Re/delegation documents and would come up with a new draft on the next day. He would take into accounts issues from the Intellectual Property group, GAC, as well as other comments from members of this Constituency. It was pointed out in the meeting that only one final document should be submitted. Though it had been found that CENTR contribution is valuable, ccTLDs should have their own report. However, there should be only one proposal to ICANN in the end based on a result of team effort.
4.3 ccTLD Funding to ICANN
The Working Group had come up with a document asking the constituency to contribute $1.4 million to ICANN where a self-selected band model had been proposed. The WG needed to get as many answers from ccTLD managers to facilitate straw hold on the position where the bands selected were not binding. A recommendation from a member was that there were two components to be considered: policy making and the funding. Because of the amount of funding (35 % of the ICANN budget) was significant there should be guaranteed four seats from ccTLDs on ICANN Board of Directors (BOD) for policy making, as opposed to now where we do not have any representative on the ICANN BOD.
The WG Chair then asked ccTLDs to make their positions clear on funding model and select their bands. At present, there are 15 responses with up to USD 150,000. The meeting was advised to observe that one of the reasons that GAC proposals had been successful with ICANN was because there was a guaranteed funding.
The WG Chair has set a deadline for the self-selected band model voting until the end of July. Discussions on how the higher band ($250,000-500,000) should be changed took place. The reason for the change was to prevent any mislead from ICANN that ccTLDs could easily be their source of income. Straw vote was called on whether the higest band should be 10% of ICANN Budget or just more than $100,000. The former was to ensure that the total 1.4 million USD can be achieved while the latter wanted to have space for ccTLDs to choose their upper bounds. As a result, the highest band, set as more than $100,000, was selected.
The WG Chair informed the meeting that some ccTLD delegates had approached him requesting for minor changes to the Bylaws. It was suggested that these members should e-mail the changes which were to be incorporated into the documents for discussion on the website. Two weeks (July 22) has been agreed for soliciting additional comments to solidify the documents.
5. ccTLD Secretariat Funding and Election
Additional 5% of contribution to ICANN will be allocated for next 5-6 months to the Interim ccTLD Secretariat operation or 10% for the whole year. Collection will be made from now through the end of December.
Election for permanent Secretariat should be carried out before the end of November 2000 and the current Interim Secretariat should work until the end of Nov. AdCom will table a call for proposal.
It was pointed out that the number of votes for the ccTLD Interim secretariat was not sufficient. Name Council election had around 60-70 votes. For the case of the Interim Secretariat voting, had CENTR voted the count should be added to about 60-70 votes as well.
The WG Chairman explained that with the outreach and translation activities, it was hoped that more participations from members would take place.
It was finally concluded that AdCom would be calling for tender, do the preliminary selection and then ask for vote.
A complaint was raised against slow ccTLDs' existing process, which seemed to be rather slow in getting consensus and execution. It was later explained that the fact of the matter was AdCom was not an executive body but merely a facilitator.
6. AdCom Member Election
The Chairman pointed out that AdCom member's term would expire except for representative from Africa. AdCom election should be held now and the new AdCom members, representing each regional group, should be in place by the end of Yokohama meeting. Each region does its own election.
Peter D. Thrush pointed out that the absence of regional groups in the draft Bylaws and that no requirements of AdCom had nothing to do with any regional groups.
A debate on AdCom election took place regarding regional representation requirements, whether AdCom should be an executive body, and whether the election should be held after the Bylaws had been approved.
7. Name Council Member Election Schedule
The Chairman reported to the meeting that the Berlin agreement was verified where it was found that there was no need for AdCom election until the Bylaws was in place. The Bylaws will be voted by the end of the month. Since the Bylaws should be in place early August, hence the new AdCom members should be elected by September. Technically, this means no NC member from ccTLDs for almost one month because NC term expires around 20 August.
Alternative solutions were explored to avoid above situation, where finally the following consensus was reached after a lengthy debate.
(a) Ask Willie Black to revise his proposed election process submitted earlier in Jan 2000 and report it by tomorrow.
(b) Elect the Name Council members using the new election process.
(c) Work on the Bylaws separately.
The Chairman notified the meeting that ICANN BOD Election was to be held sometimes in August. If we have our NC by then they can participate in the ICANN BOD election.
8. Revision of the Yokohama Meeting Schedule
7.14 0730 - 0859 AdCom 2906
7.14 0900 - 1015 GAC
7.16 0900 - 1800 DNSSEC
7.17 0900 - 1800 MINC
The meeting was called to attention by the Chairman to hear feedback from members who had just returned from the GAC meeting. Zita Wenzel (.us) was requested to present a summary of the GAC meeting. GAC was asking the ICANN BOD and staff on funding issue of ccTLDs. During the meeting, Ken Fockler, member of ICANN BOD, spoke on behalf of ccTLDs. Questions asked by GAC were about how the 35% ccTLDs contribution was determined to which ICANN staff said a number that was simply chosen, voted and posted at LA meeting. Another question raised was on what we are getting from ICANN in return. Regarding the invoices sent out by ICANN, ICANN BOD and staff said since ccTLDs were not able to come up with a proposal so they had to come up with invoices. This was because they had to find money to pay off their loan which needed to be paid within two months. ICANN staff reported that some regional registries had paid 200,000 USD and the reason for asking ccTLDs to come up with money because international funding base needed while more money come from gTLD but it is a US centered funding base. If ICANN cannot get the money, it will have to get money elsewhere.
The Status Quo paper was also dealt with in great details. Finally, Zita Wenzel suggested that we needed a call for action and could not debate forever. We need to realize motivation by ICANN to pay off within 60 days. We needed to look carefully at the Status Quo document and our own document and came up with funding to move forward. We needed agreements on funding and Status Quo document and needed to correct missing information. There was a need to say that we were willing to pay to ICANN.
Peter de Blanc suggested that since ICANN needed money so perhaps we could go along with CENTR but not involving the Status Quo on this issue.
Willie Black reported that 520,000 USD was from CENTR and another 60,000 USD coming, not just 200,000 USD as reported by ICANN staff.
A long debate took place where the Chairman requested a small Ad Hoc group to work out the wording of our communique and draw a straw vote from the meeting.
9. Marina del Ray (2000/11) Meeting Schedule
The Chairman asked the meeting to provide feedbacks on the experiment schedule of the Yokohama meeting whether it should be adopted again in LA. The format would be composed of :
9.1 ccTLD meetings
The Chairman informed the meeting that we used to have a one day meeting and one day workshop with one plenary meeting only. For Yokohama meeting, we had tried to experiment with two plenary meetings and use the IETF style of meetings.
With this format, several members complained that they had to listen to the same materials presented repeatedly.
It was suggested that the WG should have physical working group meetings and send their representatives to report to the ccTLDs meeting. There should be statement released from the meetings just like GAC's: two days meeting with one open day and the second day for drafting communiques. On-line discussions could be finalized at the physical meeting and AdCom should be an executive committee, in contrast to IETF which could not conclude anything at the physical meeting.
The Chairman asked if there should be a workshop on UDRP at the next meeting. A discussion was on whether UDRP should be of an interest to ccTLDs since it had not been successful with ICANN so far.
The meeting was interrupted for voting on the following proposed draft communique assigned to the Ad Hoc drafting group:
Draft Communique to be presented in GAC meeting:
The ccTLD Constituency of ICANN, meeting in Yokohama, notes that ICANN has stated that it has urgent financial needs;
THAT over US $ 750,000 in donations has already been pledged by it's members in support of ICANN for the Budget year ending 30 June 2000.
The ccTLD Constituency looks forward to progress.
The voting to approve this communiqué was carried unanimously.
UDRP discussion was suspended.
11. Status Quo Document
It has been agreed that this issue will not be discussed further.
12. Regional Representation
It was agreed that ccTLDs may choose regional grouping they would like to work with and that the ccTLD Secretariat would publish and carry out the self selection process.
Several members also raised the point that self-selection process should be adopted by ICANN and ccTLDs should help communicate this wish to ICANN.
13. New gTLD
Introduction of new gTLD normally would not be of any concern to ccTLDs, except when it was done to subvert existing country code, i.e. by introducing a new set of country codes using three letter country codes.
14. Multilingual Domain Names
Communique from the morning multilingual interest group meeting to be submitted to DNSO and subsequently to ICANN is as followed.
1. NOTES the importance of the development of Multilingual Domain Names to the true internationalization of the Internet.
2. ACKNOWLEDGES the importance of achieving global technical standards
3. AFFIRMS the work of the IETF on establishing consensual technical standards for Multilingual Domain Names
RECOMMENDS that the DNSO: RE-AFFIRM that the IETF is the proper body to develop critical Internet technical standards
The meeting voted to endorse above statement to be submitted to the DNSO for adoption as one of the policy.
Meeting adjourned at 18:00