World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names

ccTLD ICANN Meetings in Accra

 Home | Meetings | AdCom | ccTLD | Participants 

Executive Summary of ccTLD Meeting in Accra, Ghana

10-11 March 2002

Chair: Yann Kwok, Africa Region AdCom and .mu
Co-chair: Elisabeth Porteneuve .fr

Donation at the gate: 1,590 USD and 100 Euros

Written by: Seung-Yeon Yoo and BK Kim

There were 82 ccTLDs represented, including 46 proxies

Day one (10 March 2002)

Plenary Session 1 (9:00-12:00)

1.1 ccSO Discussion

  1. Discussion on Stuart Lynn's proposal

    Yann Kwok summarized Stuart Lynn's presentation 20020310.ICANNReform-APRICOT2002-StyartLynn.ppt on his ICANN reformation proposal, given during APRICOT2002 in Bangkok, to the ccTLD managers at Accra. Change of the structure of ICANN, review of funding, and review of openness and transparency of making decisions are the main points of Stuart Lynn's proposal on reform.

    The ccTLD managers expressed their concerns of tight timeline and a need for an alternative to Stuart Lynn's proposal. APTLD's suggestion on the Stuart Lynn's proposal was introduced, which says it is needed to get more consultation until the ICANN meeting in Shanghai in October.

    It has been suggested that ccTLD should come up with a committee to work on the approach of coordination of root server among ccTLD, gTLD, root server consortium and ICANN.

  2. Discussion on ccSO proposal

    Bart Boswinkel gave an informal summary of the formation of ccSO. He began by summarizing the Stockholm communiqué and pointed out the difference in opinions regarding the structure of the ccSO. People expressed their concerns about the position of the ccSO in the 'Reformation' proposed by Stuart Lynn.

    Some pointed out, while others disagreed, that there was no need to stay in ICANN because no representation of the ccTLD exists in the reform proposal. On the other hand, some pointed out what could be positive aspects of Stuart Lynn's proposal, recognition of a need of a separate policy council and representation at the same level with others.

    The structure for the ccSO was intensively discussed again.

  3. Report back from the Liaison Officers

    The appointed ccSO liaison officers in ICANN each gave a short report. Eva Frolich, the liaison officer of ISP constituency, added that the ISP Constituency thinks the ccs are important in ICANN process and they feel we need to be part of ICANN.

Plenary Session 2 (13:30-18:00)

2.1 Funding

Sabine Dolderer told the group that there would be a meeting tomorrow and therefore doesn't know the budget FY 2002-2003 (for ccTLDs); She presented to the group the budget status of ccTLDs and showed a table of the budget status of CENTR. She would appreciate some indication from the ccTLD community on such things like where ICANN should put more effort and less effort in and how much ccTLDs should pay for ICANN's budget.

A bit on RIR contract with ICANN was mentioned. BK Kim pointed out that if ICANN restructures, the condition of the contract would be changed.

2.2 Other discussions

  1. Two Working Groups formed
    1. communiqué of what we propose to do as an alternative to ICANN's proposal
    2. root server

    Some ccTLD managers suggested presenting the ccTLD position on ICANN's reform and the progress on the formation of a ccSO in a document. However, some thought it was uncomfortable to present a document without finalized discussions on issues and concerns. A difference in position towards ICANN among the ccTLD managers was expressed and therefore difficult to find a consensus in the document.

  2. Updates from ccTLD managers from each region

    Problems, concerns, and updates of ccTLD communities such as AFTLD, CENTR, and APTLD, from various regions were shared. It was significant because many African ccTLD managers participated the Accra meeting.

Day 2 (11 March 2002)

Plenary Session 3 (9:00-12:00)

3.1 Internationalized and multilingual Domain Name

The second day began with a presentation from ICANN IDN Committee, TFT and the language communities such as AINC, CDNC, and JET. You may see the presentations below:

  1. Presentation from ICANN IDN TFT (Elisabeth Porteneuve)
    Briefing document:
    IDN facts and dilemas: 20020310.IDN-facts-and-dilemas-EP.ppt IDN-EPorteneuve.ppt
  2. CDNC (Chinese), (Walter Wu)
  3. Presentation from ICANN IDN Committee (Masanobu Katoh)
  4. AINC (Arabic), Dr. Zakaria Ammar
  5. JET (China-Japan-Korea-Taiwan), Kazunori Konishi

3.2 Statement

  1. ccSO Formation

    Peter Dengate Thrush made a presentation on ccSO. Concerns that the Board will not consider the formation of ccSO were expressed and some expressed their feelings that the formation of a ccSO is needed as soon as possible. Difference in opinions of staying inside or outside ICANN was expressed. It was clearly explained that this newly created organization would not be a new one but mostly from the existing structure. The need to move further into the formation of ccSO is urgent.

    It was clear that the formation of a ccSO is in need but because of the differences in opinions on the structure of a ccSO, it was difficult to reach any decisions. The meeting decided that a vote would take place to see what kind of organization is wanted among the ccTLD communities after lunch.

4.1 ICANN Contract

Hiro Hotta from JPRS shared with the group the contract of .jp and ICANN, which was recently completed. You may see his presentation at

4.2 Session with Stuart Lynn

ICANN's CEO, Stuart Lynn, came to the meeting to talk about his reform proposal (see presentation). Questions regarding the reform, contract, root server, delegation and re-delegation issues, dot US, and the timeline of the reform proposal were raised. The group said that ICANN should be a technical coordination body and not a political one. Here are the questions asked by the ccTLD managers and their answers by Stuart Lynn.

  1. Q: In your proposal, there is only a place for the ccTLDs in ICANN, who have a contract with ICANN. The ccTLDs have worked hard on a draft contract but got a response with an unacceptable contract from ICANN. That is also a problem.

    A: Each ccTLD is different and has different reasons why an agreement cannot be reached. I am just laying out the consequences of not reaching an agreement.

  2. Q: From our overview of your proposal, relative to the root zone servers system, there seems to a lot of money allocated to that system. It would imply completely bringing in to contractual and commercial type of relationship, the entirety of the root server system, is that correct?

    A: I'm not convinced that it is a good idea to do it that way. The current system of the root server works well but there may be a need for a contract. I am simply pointing out that not having contracts with the root server operators is another obstacle that gets in the way of fulfilling the mission.

  3. Q: Currently, we have 13 root server operators. 10 are in the US. Why did you not succeed to find out a solution within the US for this current situation?

    A: Matters of geography do not make it easier to come to an agreement. The main issue may be a distribution of root server. One aspect could be a better geographical distribution.

  4. Q: Does the mission paper you put out after the reform proposal come before the reform proposal? Is there a process to receive comments for the mission statement?

    A: This is something I have prepared for the board and comments from you are certainly helpful. It's useful to look at both documents. If the content of the mission change, the structure of the reform will also change.

  5. Q: Why did the USG not enter an agreement with the dot US domain name with ICANN?

    A: That's a very good question. It's an in-process discussion and you should ask them that.

  6. Q: Why was the dot US domain re-delegated before entering into a contract?

    A: The US had the authority to do it and there was an emergency re-delegation as a result. The reality is that ICANN does not have control over the root server. There was a lot of ICANN dialogue in the process.

  7. Q: What is the official definition of 'emergency re-delegation'?

    A: The IANA encounters a situation where some change of name server is necessary. For some reason, the trustees of a domain name are not able to act, or not willing to act and re-delegation needs to be made in order to obtain interoperability.
    Without an agreement, re-delegation is always a risk. Some of the concerns you have may happen whether there is an agreement or not.
    I'd like to urge the ccTLDs, let this be addressed to the Board. There is some communication problem that the Board does not see some of your concerns.

  8. Q: The 'contracts' in the proposal is a critical issue. Currently there is no re-delegation done without a contract. Is there any process in place if we would like to raise this issue and change this principle, how could we do it?

    A: If you do not care about the transfer of the root from the USG, you'll have to make that known very clearly. I'm willing to look at different solutions for the problems we have and may take it to the board if we need to.

4.3 IANA Function

CENTR has formed a working group to review the IANA function, where they discussed and produced some recommendations. CENTR introduced the recommendations regarding the IANA functions and afterwards the group discussed about the IANA functions. The questions in the document were asked in an informal manner.


The IANA WG needs your input now and we invite you to give your opinion to the following question as soon as possible.

It was proposed to put the IANA Working group issue on the ccTLD discuss list for further input from the ccTLD community.

You may see the presentation and document on the IANA Function below:

4.4 ccSO discussion with ICANN Communities

The importance of support and liaising with other constituencies within ICANN regarding the ccTLD withdrawal from the DNSO was once again stressed. Peter Dengate Thrush told the group that the ccTLD community will continue with the proposal of forming a ccSO and would like to submit a formal proposal to the board.

Peter Dengate Thrush asked the other constituencies for their views on the reform proposal by Stuart Lynn.

The ccTLD group answered that there will be a need for clarifications and discussions on issues in Stuart Lynn's proposal. The ccTLD constituency stated that it will move forward with the formation of a ccSO, regardless of a reformation proposal and will move in a manner that is beneficial to others. The liaison officers from other constituencies said that putting forward a balanced proposal, as a coordination effort of the constituencies is probably a best way to progress. They also pointed out that a formation of ccSO may a change that ICANN requires in order for it to work.

4.5 ccSO Discussion and Communique

Submission of a formal letter to the Board

Although, a formal letter was drafted for submission to the board, there were not enough consensuses among the ccTLD managers for it to be actually submitted. Taking a move forward with the formation of ccSO is very important and having a position, proposal of our own is needed as soon as possible.

Voting on the structure of ccSO

In the morning session, it was proposed to take a vote regarding the ccSO structure. Before the voting took place, the need of clarification on voting procedure was expressed. You may see the questions and results of the vote that was taken on 11 March 2002 on ccSO structure below.

In Stockholm we decided to leave the DNSO and form a ccSO within ICANN. Regardless of this, there has been an ongoing discussion whether the ccTLDs worldwide should set up a legal entity separate from and independent of ICANN. With regard to this, we have to choose one of the following alternatives:

Step I.

  1. Do you want a ccSO within the ICANN structure without formal legal incorporation (and no legal global entity outside of ICANN) ?

    Yes: 19

  2. Do you want a separate legal entity outside of ICANN which then applies to ICANN to serve as ccSO?

    Yes: 14

  3. Do you want to have 1. and 2. at the same time?

    Yes: 47
    Abstain: 2

In case I.2. or I.3. is answered with "Yes", we need to take a second vote as follows

Step II.

  1. Do you want to set up such a separate legal entity with the ability to set global policies which would be binding for each member?

    Yes: 0

  2. Do you want to set up such a separate legal entity as a forum for mere exchange of information, without the ability to set binding policies?

    Yes: 59
    Abstention: 11

Drafting of the Communiqué

After the first day's draft of communiqué, there was another one drafted, in a more positive tone. However, many objections followed and therefore it was decided that further corrections were needed. You may see the final version of the communiqué at 20020313.ccTLDaccra-communique.html

© ccTLD Managers
Page updated : 2003-05-26 19:27:04