ccTLD Meeting in Shanghai – Brief Notes


Minutes taken by Sue Leader

Edited by Abhisak Chulya


October 27, 2002 (Day 1)


Chaired by Peter Dengate Thrush, AdCom and Vice Chair of APTLD,

Cochaired by Prof. Hua Lin Quan of .cn


1.1 Reaction to ERC's Implementation Report

-         Peter Dengate Thrush presentation


Documents background:

-         ERC's First Implementation Report

-         ERC's First Supplemental Implementation Report

-         Fourth Status Report on Implementation of Evolution and Reform: RIRs Propose Blueprint




Patricio Poblete of .cl - the Assistance Group (AG) has focussed on the role of the SO; scope and powers. Consensus is same as ccSO thinking - narrowly defined global issues.  Difficulty is to define "global issues".  Bart's paper creates a matrix to assist thinking about roles etc. (see ccNSO Assistance Group "Update to the Evolution and Reform Committee)


Peter Dengate Thrush - Limbo as we made recommendations which have been ignored. Yet the ccNSO doesn't include Constitution etc. (Note Section E, pg 7, ICANN Final Implementation) and that leaves out ccTLDs as 'critical entity".  So what we should be doing or  waiting to be consulted?


Maureen Cubberly of .ca - Assistance Group (AG) has been working in a difficult situation. Have a communication problem - what is the process?


Peter Dengate Thrush - the two AdCom members in the AG have been giving fortnightly oral reports during Adcom teleconference. However no one else giving feedback despite requests. If their work is to have any credibility for cc's this has to stop.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr – I agree that we need for communications. AG started awkward because it was not set up via ccTLDs, so representing individual only.  Trying to define what are global policy matters. I think it should be funding, redelegation, IANA function, forum to speak with other constituencies. I think funding from ccTLD based on per name payment should be different than that of gTLDs. The reason is that ccTLDs develop policy at home and the costs are born by each ccTLD. Therefore funding calculation should not be the same as gTLDs.


Chris Disspain of .au – It’s hard to answer as we will have a meeting this afternoon. I think ERC is listening to what we are saying and I don't think ERC will ignore our recommendations. Some stuff has been resolved, some assistance from cc's are needed. I am impressed by attitude of ERC.   We have teleconference every week as well as mailing lists.  We have identified five areas for recommendations: scope, policy dev, membership, council, and structure.  Scope critically needs cc’s input.  We plan to have a report to ICANN Board meeting in December. I accepted to be on this AG because it’s good way to show ICANN that cc's have lots of agreement.


Willie Black of .uk – I am here to be convinced that ICANN is going somewhere. Under instructions from the Board that until IANA function is working properly. If it’s not going to be, then we should work to get IANA function out of ICANN.  I want to know why anyone wants to be involved in ICANN.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr  - Referring to proposal by IP Registries to take over RIR function, cc's could do the same thing for IANA function.


Willie Black of .uk – To come here, it’s an advantage to meet colleagues.  I wish I had more time to hear about each other systems, legal, governments, etc.  This is what I think useful, not  paying money to ICANN.  IANA function is simple and can be done.


Herbert Vitzthum of ICANN – I disagree with Willie Black. IANA function is different from what .uk does.  IANA has to work with 244 ccTLDs - many with old issues. Problem is the policy around IANA - people are willing to do the job - but can't because the Policy requires certain procedures. e.g., nameserver changes. Fix the Policy issue first.


Peter Dengate Thrush - How do we fix the Policy?


Herbert Vitzthum of ICANN – It’s simple: all sides involved need to agree on the Policy.  Referring to ICANN meeting in Cairo - ICP-1 document, ccTLDs refused to work on it because of perceived risk.  So let’s work together.


Sabina Dolderer of .de – I don't see that there is a bottom-up policy, ICP-1 isn't one. Problem with ICANN interpreting policy differently to suit its current goals.  Our contribution is ignored. IANA function is broken.


Peter Dengate Thrush - If there was an SO, would that be the place to make (or repair) Policy? Then goes as directive to the Board.


Sabina Dolderer of .de - If we need complicated process to get easy answer, let’s do it.


Willie Black of .uk - What needs to be done? If we want independence from US government, we have to get their confidence. ICANN supposed to do that. It hasn't happened and I don't believe it will.

  1. Technical: what needs to be stored in IANA database (i.e. the Manager's details)
  2. Legal - contract process which binds parties to IANA function; and
  3. Political - US government needs to have confidence in 1 and 2, need to have GAC to agree is OK.


Nigel Roberts of .gg – I agree about past, but need to look to the future.  Now it’s clear to ccTLD managers and GAC that having e-commerce structure controlled by a foreign government is not acceptable so IANA function has to be independent.  Therefore the ccTLDs and GAC are the concerned parties - why we need ICANN to talk to own government. Here is the message to Reform Group - we've done good faith for four plus years - and will continue to do so, but we need some actions.


Herbert Vitzthum of ICANN - Now we need to start talking with points of agreement.  cc's can’t agree amongst themselves. We don't need the structure, just agree.


Peter Dengate Thrush - racks into Herbert Vitzthum for not listening as that's what we're here for.


Kilnam Chon of .kr - Basically we are trying to have a system like RIR but ICANN treating like derivative of gTLDs. In reality we are some where in between - a third entity.  We want identity close to RIR - but they're ten years ahead of us from RIPE and APNIC, we only moved after Green and White Papers, so we're doing catch-up. So we don't have autonomous unit like RIRs  but we're getting there.  Our differences to RIR: GAC - close relationship so we have to include; as long as we have meeting at ICANN, it’s inevitable that we are a sub-entity of ICANN.  So let’s try to set the meetings away from ICANN with clear separation. Once we separate, we can address Willie's concerns.


Patricio Poblete of .cl - ccNSO scope is the crucial issue and that's what we're discussing in various ways. All the networking etc is good, but it shouldn't be confused with contractual/binding global issues. Once work those out then we can test assumptions which arise.   If it is decided only ccTLD managers who participate, then we lost it!


Sabina Dolderer of .de – I disagree that cc manager has anything to do with ICANN


Peter Dengate Thrush – We raise issues about problem with delegations - isn't this a cc issue?


Hua Lin Quan of .cn - All we need from ICANN is IANA function.  There is no need for IANA to be in ICANN.  Look at RIRs creating many RIRs; ICANN should only manage policy and do some co-ordination.  We only concerned with root database; It is cheap and easy to do.  ccTLDs could do it.  It should be very simple relationship between ccTLD and ICANN.


Redelegation of .cd


Horst Siffrin of .cd - In Sept 2000 we tried to register .cd domains and couldn't find the person behind the registry; the contact NIC info and address were wrong even the name of the Country.  We phoned IANA and ICANN and they changed Name of country in database. Minister didn't know who did the managing.  It is also the same person who manage Burundi.  They charge very high cost per name.  In Jan 2001 Minister was invited to go to ICANN but President was killed.  Then, new President went to meet US Government  in Marina dey Ray to initiate discussion.   After two weeks waiting in hotel no one showed up.  He called Horst from Brussels to be legal council.  We have a four-day meeting for conditions to take over registry. We had to contact Admin Contact in Kinshasa and then found out a manager located in South Africa.  We went to see that person and it turned out to be a Sport Club fund raising but referring everyone to South Africa.   He agreed to redelegate as the Rebels had wanted him to pay them.  In 2001 we informed IANA about redelegation and that manager has agreed, and gave copy of contract.  We are still waiting for answer.  We had teleconference with US Department of Commerce who promised to look into this matter but refused emergency redelegation as not necessary.  Please have a look at the contract. The Admin contact in Kinshasa was not here because of visa problem.


Nigel Roberts of .gg  - It’s interesting and cautionary tale: IANA is more broken than thought. This case is requested to change of manager with agreement of current manager and the government of country concerned; clearly highlights that e-commerce infrastructure of one country is controlled by another country.  Highlights need for neutral build process.  ICANN can't manage it.


Horst Siffrin of .cd - even ISOC agrees as it can't register names themselves ( is in WHOIS). An email system is set up for all Congolese people with external servers for stability.


Peter Dengate Thrush  - Is there any progress?


Horst Siffrin of .cd – We met with Louise Touton in Stockholm and he wanted translated contract. At Bucharest he said ICANN doesn't consider you as a partner in the process.


Liz of .au – member of .au board who advise .cx  - It seems process is not working for change of managers. Can we as a group create a process to direct IANA how to do?


Peter Dengate Thrush – please see Bucharest document which creates process but it was ignored.


Liz of .au -  how do we make it happen?


Peter Dengate Thrush – The only way is to do it within ICANN which is ccNSO which can make Policy.


Liz  of .au- Can we use existing document and send to the Board of ICANN?


Peter Dengate Thrush – Currently we have to send via DNSO and Board ignores DNSO policy.


Richard Francis - Nominet legal Dispute Resolution seems like a stalled Dispute Resolution procedure; in Africa about 18 ccTLDs sliced across jurisdictions.  Why not start the GAC/ccTLD redelegation WG approved in Bucharest.


Nigel Roberts of .gg – How? – Let’s stop playing the ICANN game and set up IANA function self as IANA contract runs out.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr – I agree.  IANA function does not include redelegation; neither is in ICANN function.


Horst Siffrin of .cd - Not only it’s a .cd problem but also .ng same problems.  We just can't get anyone to reply.


Sabina Dolderer of .de -  We see problems and need support of governments.


Peter Dengate Thrush - should we wait 12 months for ICANN to achieve?


Willie Black of .uk - No. Still saying same thing for past four years. We the ccTLD community must tell US government that we intend to fix things, whether or not we are part of ICANN. We each need to meet with Nancy Victory and tell them that we are in consensus. They need evidence and solution.


Nigel Roberts of .gg – I heard Willie Black sound is too negative, our response to American negotiating tactics. We need to move to positive approach - work together.


Peter Dengate Thrush - need caution in jumping


Richard Francis – It’s real politics: US homeland protection - needs solution to be US based.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr - IANA functions have three parts: 1. protocol - moved to IETF, 2. IP numbers - proposal from RIRs to shift, 3. DNS - a) ccTLD rootservers - ccs could do and less threatening to US; b) gTLDs - this is ICANN function.


Peter Dengate Thrush - how about both issues worked on at same time? ccSO for IANA function and redelegation process; and work on for year, but demonstrate to governments that it’s serious.


Willie Black of .uk - Elisabeth Porteneuve analysis is good. Routine maintenance and redelegation are the issues.  We have to understand real politics and take chance to speak to US representatives. Ask if redelegation actually a risk or not.   Refer to PDT’s - yes to working on both, but more on the second rather than just a fall-back. Process could take a year so need to start work now.


Peter Brougter of Belgian registry - Yes on both issues. Question is whether one year MOU is really a final one year or not. If it really is last extension, then we should work more on the second option.


Peter Dengate Thrush – It is really one year and have to report every four months.


MC  - We should work on both in parallel.  Looking back at original mandate which is missing ccTLDs - therefore it is crucial we keep moving.  Go back to principles, prioritise it, then establish what can do now and present the list with consensus and areas of work.


Peter Dengate Thrush – Do we all agree to see if we can schedule time with US Department of Commerce over next couple of days.


Meeting: agree.


Updates on other ccTLD delegation issues:


Michael Silber of .za - legislation passed, going through process of redelegation; tensions eased some; some antagonisms but less strained; local internet community is working together. Note: whether this process takes place within or outside ICANN point.


RF of .ng – It is currently retained by Nigerian Internet Group.  The database is Nigerian Government who is still undecided and has been taking some time.  Randy Bush is tech contact - as soon as Nigerian Government makes decisions we will transfer management to technical competent people in Nigeria.  The delay is in the sorting out.


Jousrt Zoubier of .tk – We started to accept registrations in December.  Admin contact is still in NZ and he is worried about legal issues; agreement with government of .tk.  We are still waiting for the redelegation from IANA which required us to sign contract and government of .tk doesn't want to sign contract.




1.2  ccTLD Secretariat report - circulated documents and presentation


            1.2.1 BK Kim’s presentation



-         changes to staffing: BK Kim moves from Executive Director to Deputy Executive Director; Abhisak Chulya moves from Deputy Executive Director to Executive Director.  ccTLD Secretariat office will be shifted from Korea to Thailand.  Current Secretariat will be expired in May 2003.


-         financial projections is looking OK


-         new Secretariat selection will be done by June 2003


-         Peter Dengate Thrush thanked BK Kim for his work.


-         Peter Dengate Thrush suggested that staffing changes should leave to AdCom.  Note that sufficient time must be given to AdCom to consult ccTLDs.


-         For a new Secretariat, it’s time to think about it.   Chair suggested to review of tender documents in time for bids.




Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr  - Secretariat composition must be adapted to ccSO/ccNSO creation.


Peter Dengate Thrush - suggest to review Terms of Reference for new Secretariat by December 30, 2002.  If go ahead, there will a call for bids by Feb 28, 2003. Approval will be made by March 31, 2003.


1.2.2 Outreach and Name Server Training reported by Abhisak Chulya



-         There were 32 people from 17 ccTLDs

-         Content of Program:

-         Introduction to DNS by Bill Manning

-         Advance DNS by Bill Manning

-         DNS registries (Joe Abley - ISC)

-         Server Management and Security by YangWoo Ko of Korea

-         Shared Experience among ccTLDs

-         Global training

-         Brazil - March 2003

-         Canada - June 2003

-         Africa - Oct/Nov 2003

-         Regional training

-         Africa,  June 2003 (AfriNIC/AFNOG)

-         Europe, Sept 2003 (with CENTR)

-         Latin America, November  2003 (with LACTLD)


Abhisak urged ccTLDs to make donation since only $US26000 to date this year.  Maureen Cubberly announced that .ca will be making $5000 donation to Secretariat, and Sue Leader of .nz has $5000 cheque for Secretariat as well.


Note that Herbert Vitzthum was explaining about his remark this morning which was "I don't want to listen".  Actually he meant  “I want to focus on the important points, not the 'dust around”. Of course he wants to listen to us.



1.3  DNSO Funding


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr  - I have a meeting with Stuart Lynn and Louise Touton.  The transition to ICANN 2 will take some time, at least next March. Issue is on how to split assets. Names Council mandate runs out in next two days, so decision is needed to either say “goodbye" or work out a solution.


Peter Dengate Thrush  - Let’s run through background on withdrawal from DNSO.


Marianne Wolfsgruber – CENTR has paid 4000 Euro to DNSO for past involvement.


Willie Black – A desire to leave is not commented on DNSO Secretariat.


Nigel Roberts - First principal: Action on decision to leave.  If we wanted to stay, we should have elected Names Council members long before now.


A motion has been moved by Sue Leader of .nz and seconded by Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr.


Motion: THAT we announce our decision consistent with points #6 and #9 of the ccTLD Stockholm Communique to withdraw from DNSO at the end of the DNSO Names Council Meeting on Oct 29, 2002.


The meeting approved unanimously with no oppose.


1.4    RIR Blueprint, by Geoff Huston - Secretary of APNIC Executive Council, on RIRs paper


APNIC is one of three, soon four, regional internet registries which date back four-five years. It exists to allocate IP addresses to users.  No charge for addresses per se but membership charge. Then IP addresses allocated free to those with legitimate uses.  Management of address resources which are relatively scarce.  Aim of RIRs and policies are to ensure address space available now and future.  Also future proofing - certain amount of aggregation so routing can be coped.  (Compare telephone addresses which use single prefix per country).


Internet child of deregulation!  RIRs work on self-regulation and open policy meetings.   We work hard to ensure consensus reached among industries within regions like RIPE NCC, ARIN and APNIC while LACNIC is in charter, and AfriNIC is in process.


All stakeholders are able to participate in RIRs policy process. The RIRs signed into ICANN process via ASO.


RIRs had agreement with ICANN reform need. We have worked hard to look at how we could help. Now we come up with a Blueprint:

-         a number resource registry [NRR] (one part of IANA function)

-         different role for ASO to improve address management (see Section 2, Core Values, #3 - the delegation statement on co-ordination or policy role.)


Role of NRR:

-         NRR doesn't allocate to Registries or End Providers. It allocates from the unused pool to RIRs just like what IANA does today.  This includes IPv4, IPv6, and ASNs.  Inside the NRR is Allocated Blocks, Reserved Blocks, and Unallocated Blocks.  Peer Review is essential in the process for transparency.

-         DNS Inverse Number Delegations (reverse look-up)




Willie Black of .uk - Why bother having anything to do with ICANN at all (i.e. the Board seats). What is the value?


Geoff Houston – It is part of learning process about industry with self-regulation; learning process of operating in de-regulated market. Evolution is a step-by-step to ensure stability. Role of ICANN is a first step away from previous controls.


BS – Have you presented to GAC and ICSP?


Geoff Houston - cc's are the first to see slides; however papers have been submitted through the public process for some time.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr  - What are chances of this proposal being accepted?


Geoff Houston - To the extent ICANN represents broad-based consensus across the planet; and the fact every address we use which comes out of that process; evolution and reform requires substance and a level of trust in the bodies that they serve constituencies properly, so we believe that it will be accepted.


Peter Dengate Thrush - what if rejected?


Geoff Houston – It’s a good faith contribution, so we believe it is the appropriate step.  Therefore, we have no Plan B.


Demi Getschko of .br - What about ITU proposal?


Geoff Houston - ITU may have its own reform in progress.   The whole industry is in change with massive deregulation and industries which are not in geographical boundaries.


The meeting congratulates RIRs and its Blueprint.  A motion is moved by Maureen Cubberly of .ca and seconded by Chris Disspain of .au.


“That  the meeting congratulates the RIRs on a clear logical and inclusive response to the reform issue, in direct response to ICANN’s own dilemma, a solution which we wholeheartedly support”.


The meeting approved unanimously with acclamation.


1.5    Discussion of ccNSO Assistance Group


Presentation by Chris Disspain (.au) and Bart Boswinel (.nl),

Presentation – http://

Paper -




Chris Disspain – There should be unanimously opinion that must reach consensus on scope - nothing further can be done without it.  I am looking for feedback at tomorrow's session.



-         Functional DNS model perspective

-         entering data, running name server and producing zone files (see slides)

-         From a ccTLD perspective: It’s hierarchical: Root, tld, second level domain (note technically the ccTLD is the Second LD!)

-         Distribution of responsibilities

-         vertical

-         horizontal (policy role [define], executive role [action], accountability role)


If combine three perspectives, we get a Framework for analysis.


1.6  Session with ERC and ICANN Board of Directors: Hans Kraaijenbrink, Nii Qaynor, Alejandro Pisanty (ERC Chair)


Hans: We have completed tasks for GNSO as most urgent and it also can be used as a roadmap.  This assumes that growth in ccTLD participation means cc's have a global area of interest.  Other external events can have an impact, e.g. the ITU interest. 




Sabine Dolderer: I think AG has done a good job on scoping; and RIRs have done the good job on bottom-up process. I don't agree that hand-picking people is open and transparent process. cc's has done a lot of work on ccSO process and yet it was rejected.


Alejandro Pisanty:  Like the open language ccTLDs use, we will use the same.  You don't fully appreciate implications of RIRs proposals.  Not only supervising compliance with RIRs own processes but also the fact that there may be disagreements within RIRs.  Therefore, there is a need for ICANN to resolve dissent.  Opportunities for dissent will grow with two new RIRs devoted to developing countries.  We decided to invite a number of people who don't just have a ccTLD perspective but also user perspective.   I have learnt that the complaints map to principals can deal with them.   When map to a level of privilege is lost, it is only an expression of self interest. We hope to trust people we brought into the process.


We can not put aside any of the developmetns of ccSO.   AG has not reached that stage yet.  When AG is at that stage, it will take in.  Complaints about draft of ByLaws don't deal with scope so we must deal with that first.


Nii Quaynor: The output of the AG has been quite valuable, so we should judge work by output not composition of AG.   We are welcome to anyone who want to contribute to the AG.


Bill Semich of .nu: Referring the most recent document on bylaws, is this a fine document or still need a lot to fill in.


Hans Kraaijenbrink: Some sections were filled in more, but ccNSO and ASO still have discussions going on, so the work is in progress.  AG will continue the work after Shanghai. So we hope to have ByLaws finalised for Amsterdam in Dec. Also proposals for transition of old Board to new Board will be finalised.


BS:  if largely finalised, is there room for input or be voted on in the next few days?


Hans Kraaijenbrink: There are some discussions on refinement but no major changes. For general remarks on ByLaws, please come to the meeting tomorrow.


Alejandro Pisanty:  We have done a really good job. It has taken six months with two meetings and also An Open Forum.  Board has already approved framework in blueprint, so this would have to be new "alarm signals".


Patricio Poblete: Is there any timetable for AG?


Hans Kraaijenbrink: Two to three weeks after Shanghai so that we can translate into ByLaws language in time.  It is important to comment on the framework.  We need time to post the conclusions.  We already are working on Policy Making process.


Alf Hansen, member of AG: limit of two-three weeks is far too short.


Hans Kraaijenbrink: I'm an optimist.  We will have to play by ear if it is not done. It is a work in progress. In White Paper core values we find the one combined unit (Jon Postel) is still valid. Last four years has been a learning process.  These core values will remain core in the new ICANN.


Peter Dengate Thrush: Thanks all for attending and notes disappointment that ERC has not apologised for the handpicking of AG which is in total breach of ICANN bottom-up process.



OCTOBER 28, 2002 (Day 2)


Plenary 2 – Chaired by Peter Dengate Thrush


2.1 ccTLD Response to Blueprint


ccSO Formation - see


Peter Dengate Thrush works through the following issues:

-         the documents on Supporting Organization: no dissent from the meeting;

-         alternative proposal to ccSO proposed by Willie Black - create Working Group to do: 1) create database to replace IANA and contract to take on this work and 2) set up ccSO outside ICANN;

-         narrow global issues

-         funding: limited to cc activities, no subsidy of non-cc activities; ccSO approves budget and then guarantees funding; self allocation of total budget;

-         no external parties appointed to Nominating Committee

-         GAC should not be only liaison person but rather joint working group.


Moved by Peter Dengate Thrush


“Motion: THAT the ccTLD meeting in Shanghai endorses the ccTLD Response to the Blueprint”


The meeting approved this motion with one abstention from .uk.


The meeting agreed to set up a small working group headed by Willie Black to draft an alternative proposal which could work in parallel to ccSO.


2.2 Zone Files Access


There is currently disputed by various members of the ccTLD community, who do not make access to their zone files available to IANA.   ICANN will not make any IANA database changes if requested by ccTLDs unless they provide access to their zone files.


LACTLD presentation by Oscar Robles


Karl Auerbach, ICANN Directors - can we separate out the TLD linkage records from the whole zonefiles transfers? ccTLDs take on responsibility to run their own audits and publish reports.


Nigel Robert of .gg -  you can already see the NS records by querying without AXFR.


CENTR presentation by Kim Davies


- this presentation gives the background and discusses the timeline and issuance of ICANN FAQ on Sept 4, 2002.


APTLD presentation by Ramesh Kumar Naradajah


-         substantial agreement among ccTLDs

-         RFC1591 doesn't address  Zone file transfer (AXFR) but does address DNS diagnosis.  However this can be done in other ways


Tomorrow this issue will be debated at Panel at DNSO GA between 09:45-10:30


Sabine Dolderer of .de – the key is that IANA function is purely a recording function, not a setting of strings to gets changes (e.g., sign the contract)


Moved by Steven and seconded by Hansen


“THAT the ccTLDs meeting in Shanghai support the statements issued to date by the Regional Associations with respect to the zone file transfer requirements being imposed by ICANN/IANA staff as a pre-condition to necessary updates to ccTLD IANA database information, and calls upon the ICANN Board of Directors to immediately instruct the ICANN/IANA staff to cease imposing such preconditions”


The meeting approved unanimously with no oppose.


2.3 Resolution on IDN by APTLD


Kilnam Chon of .kr presents the APTLD resolution on IDN


Moved by Chon, seconded by Hansen


1.      THAT the ccTLD Constituency (ccSO) to form IDN Working Groups to address issues for various language groups

2.      THAT the global Internet community have regular fora among various stakeholders to co-ordinate activities starting with information exchanges.


The meeting approved unanimously with no oppose.


2.4  ITU Session - Richard Hill (ITU), Marilyn Cade (ATT, US govt delegate to ITU), Tony Holmes (BT)


Richard Hill:

-         Resolution 101 (Minneapolis) - the standardization part of ITU should work with IETF on relevant issues.

-         Resolution 102 - Domain Names - ITU should offer assistance to ICANN (a no prejudice decision, i.e, ICANN can ignore)

-         reflects the member states view of the world

-         the development Sector - developing countries want assistance to develop internet; Peace Sector - work with relevant bodies (ICANN, IETF etc); to work with Member States and Sector Members, recognizing the activities of other appropriate entities, to review Member States' ccTLD and other related experiences.


Marilyn Cade: congratulates on turnout; more than other constituencies.

-         For summary: - go to newsroom and conference highlights.

-         Financial stability of the ITU is important to businesses.       

-         Growing interest from governments in the internet - big focus of the discussions

-         Issues for ccTLDs: may rest on the private sector's ability to manage governance of internet; ITU played key role in areas of government.


Tony Holmes: didn't attend Marakesh. My role with British Telecom covers both sides of issue. I have hig regard for what have been done there. We need tool for deregulation.


Resolution 102 issues: share view importance of private sector led management.

-         Difference in consensus building is that the ITU once voting is the government vote, not private sector vote.

-         what is vehicle for involvement - needs a new method, in the end it is government who have the vote

-         if the internet is going to be totally global, it has to have governments more involved, but unsure what the wording of Resolution 102 actually means. Need to remember ITU processes and history – ground rules.


Richard Hill – ITU is rarely vote.  We work for consensus (rather veto power).  ITU is bottom up.


Marilyn Cade – Resolution 101 language suggests ITU could play other roles in relation to ccTLDs. Governments have interest in regulating the internet.  That is why we must look at the Instructtions, as these depend on input.  It’s important as internet grew up in totally different space to that of telecommunications.  General theme (Specific theme - #3) - what role will ccTLDs play?  Can they even get to the meetings?


Richard Hill - Two basics: where Admin Contact is in Country and where is not.  In case of  “where not” - where is OK and agreed, and where is a problem. When it is in Country - what is the relationship with government.


Klienbekter (?)– The distinction is in techical issues which private sector is responsible. But ITU is political; how you are going to separate, e.g. ICANN.


Richard Hill – I don't know and I can't say. Governments won't put themselves out of business; there also are areas where we don't go, e.g., civil society.


Marilyn Cade - How does a company work at ITU?  Sector members pay a percentage of the "contribution" from the Country they are in. Delegates can only speak in governments view.


Tony Holmes - Please consider what Resolution 102 means.   It is contribution driven; but need to think about whether that is what want to contribute.


Richard Hill – There would be no fee for the first ccTLD meeting.  I am suggesting a workshop format.


2. 5 Discussion of the ccNSO Assistance Group Report (Continued)


Bart Boswinkel reprises yesterday's presentation in more detail. First question: is this the appropriate approach? (No dissent) Second question - what the meeting thinks of the matrix?


Peter Dengate Thrush wants definition for TLD changed to First registration, Transfer, and Deletion to Entry and change and remove the WHOIS and Dispute Resolution.


Sue Leader suggests splitting Roles column into two - one of global and one of local only, covers both need to include all activities but clarifies some things, not ICANN ever.


Chris Disspain - Have we missed anything? Any other issues with what falls out?


There is none. All Agreed.


Lunch Break


Plenary 3  (1400 – 1530)


3.1 Session with ICANN IDN Committee – chaired by Kilnam Chon of .kr

-         Masanobu Katoh (IDN Chair and ICANN Board), Vincent Chen (.tw); Jon Klensin (IAB Chair)


Masanobu Katoh:

This committee has been working since last year and time expires at the end of this week.  I have asked Board for extension.  IETF issues the standard proposals (see APTLD report). Issues arise, especially as decision not to restrict the ASCII character set available.  This standard is Client-side implementation.  Other issues are


·        Permissible code point issue (C-J-K) - registration and Administraive guidelines?

·        Second level IDN implementation - need to slow down?

·        whether and when to proceed and adopt non-ASCII TLDs - need to wait and see?

·        Need dialogue and co-ordination among registries for SLD/IDN implementation?

·        Use Interface issues?


Vincent Chen of .tw - Impact of IDN Registration Policy by UNICODE variants issue - case study  on Chinese Characters.  It’s really interesting.


·        68156 characters C-J-K UNICODE!

·        UNICODE is character based; local implementation almost language based.

·        Check the table on collisions as that's where the problem is. Note that very low collision with .tw encoding.

o case: If no any mechanisms to reduce name confusion,  about 18% to 23% of registered names has name conflict problem.

o case: About 16% to 21%

o case: About  15% to 20%

o case: Very few percentage of name conflict by applying mapping table mechanism


John Klensin - Internationalisation Status and Directions: IETF, JET, and ICANN


This is coming in the next couple of months. Chen's table is important - 20% collision and the net is dead.  It could only tolerate 2%.  ccTLDs are the ones in control.


·        RFC release - assume four to six months if full process is followed; one month if people just jump right in.

·        IETF work is only part of the solution. It is up to ICANN and us. This is critical.

·        WE NEED RULES AS TO WHAT WE WILL ALLOW TO BE REGISTERED IN OUR DOMAINS as soon as 30 days from now.   Especially restriction to one language-one script rule (i.e., no mixing scripts).  This isn't a global solution, has to be per zone basis. Please check the JET Guidelines.



3.2 Delegation of Afghanistan (.af) - Amman Amanullah, Ministry of Communications and Marc Lepage of UNDP


Communications were largely destroyed in war. We are trying to start again.  .af is not functional.  Local people don't have access to internet.  World Bank and UN want to help.  Any help from ccTLDs would be appreciated. We don't have security problem in our country any more.


Mark Lepage - Needs are huge in and out of Kabul especially training at all levels; we want to send staff to Registries training for a couple of weeks.  Who can assist?



3.3 Joint meeting with GAC (1600 – 1730):  Four items on Agenda 1) ICANN Reform, 2) Progress of SO, 3) Regional consultation with the GAC, 4) Review of the GAC principals and how being applied within ICANN.



October 29, 2002 (Day 3)


Plenary 4 (0900 – 1230) – Chaired by Peter Dengate Thrush


4.1 Discussion on DNSO GA Panel on IANA's Zone-File Access Policy


Feedback from yesterday Panel discussion:  It’s very frustrating session.  Touton took over; left before it ended.  We have no chance for challenge or discussion.  Impression looks like it ‘s only a couple of ccTLDs just arguing.  There was concern that Elisabeth's original DNSO motion as amended is not helpful.  Our Names Council people have been fighting to get it right, but DNSO is not clear.  Suggesting to tell Name Council representatives to vote against revised version.


Maureen Cubberley – The panel did a good job, but frustrated.  Can we move it forward with action item document.


Marianne Wolfsgruber of CENTR - not so negative; however, it’s clear from statements released last couple of weeks that the revised motion goes wrong way. Let’s revive Elisabeth's motion.


Peter Dengate Thrush – Any instructions to our Names Council Representatives?


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr - Her original motion on September 12 was amended after long discussion and put to vote at Names Council on October 1.  It’s a 2-week vote.  The result will go to Names Council today - so called Elisabeth Porteneuve’s resolution and also Bruce Tonkin.  Security Committee meets tonight with suggestion to Steve Crocker that ccTLD managers be added.  Internet security is up to everybody.


Peter Dengate Thrush - Do we want to keep the attack going or give directions to participants to WG or tell them not to participate?


Sabine Dolderer of .de – If we are going to take part, we need to give clear mission.  I also disagree that internet security is up to everybody.  It’s specialised.  ICANN/IANA is not the place, very limited place.


Peter Dengate Thrush – First, how to get instructions and Second, what instructions to give them.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr – It’s Security and Stability Advisory Group - led by Steve Crocker, (plus 18, of whom 4 ccTLD managers and IANA function staff).


Willie Black of .uk – We should participate, but if participate, will it be seen as if it is a binding global policy?  I think Louise Touton isn't going to hold out on this.  Therefore if participate, let’s make clear only accept outcome as policy if it comes back to ccTLDs for comment.


Jaap Akerhuis - We can report to whoever we want - not just to ICANN Board.


Peter Dengate Thrush – Willie Black’s comments are based on experience, e.g., ICANN Budget Committee.


Sabine Dolderer of .de - Looking at ByLaws and see all the Advisory Committees, it suggests that some relevant policy may not be actually fed through ccSO.


Peter Dengate Thrush – Let’s do the following:

-         appoint delegates;

-         clear mission statement;

-         clear statement that not policy setting authority;

-         must come back to cc's before goes to Board;


The meeting appointed: people from today's Panel - Sabina Dolderer, Kim Davies, Elisabeth Porteneuve, Oscar Robles. This group will write up our own Mission Statement and circulate.


4.2 Open session with other issues (1030 – 1230)


The meeting suggests to keep going as is but no Names Council representatives.  Some discussion on removing ccTLD AdCom but Peter Dengate Thrush suggested there are ongoing work needs.  The meeting also agrees to stick with the name: World Wide Alliance Top Level Domains.  It noted that when issuing statement about attendance means that we are global policies.


Sue Leader of .nz – We need to meet at least twice a year at the same time as ICANN in order to keep communication with GAC.


Willie Black of .uk – I agree that we need to keep meeting at the same time as ICANN, but slightly better venue.   We need to meet and communicate and keep focus.   And we need to add sharing between ourselves about each other's issues, systems etc.


Peter Dengate Thrush – Are we goint to meet in Amsterdam (12 – 15 December)?


Marianne Wolfsgruber of CENTR- Regardless of agenda, cc's are likely to be the ones who need to make statements.


Stefan Wenzel of .de – We don't know what's on the Agenda, we may need to be there.


Sabline Dolderer of .de – We need to be there to ensure that things don't get pushed through without our knowledge.


Calvin Browne of – We should go, but no official ccTLD meeting.


Willie Black of .uk – We should make a powerful political statement that we will not participate, not even in DNSO, so make the statement that as long as there is still no ccSO so ICANN Board, we will not be attending.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr– We need to manage our resources and firepower.  Some delegates should go if attending anyway.


Nigel Roberts of .gg – We should not have a formal meeting of ccTLD, but anyone wants to go in formal matter can go.


Peter Dengate Thrush – We agree unanimously that no formal ccTLD meeting.  Four people are planning to go anyway.  Another three or four cc’s could go if needed.  The rest will take part online.


Dotty Sparks of .vi - widow of Peter de Blanc:

Acknowledge and thank for Manager's Letter and Board Resolution. Peter de Blanc always  talk about his commitment and enjoyment with ccTLD community.


Presentation to Byung-Kyu Kim on his retirement from Secretariat  and moving to be Professor at Korea Advance Institute of Technology (KAIST).  Tribute to his work as Executive Director and gift presented by Peter Dengate Thrush.


Presentation to Elisabeth Porteneuve and Oscar Robles on the completion of their terms as DNSO Names Council and gifts presented by Peter Dengate Thrush.


Herbert Vitzthum, ccTLD Liaison of ICANN -  says goodbye to ccTLDs.  He is leaving this position at the end of this year.




Plenary 5 (1400 – 1800)


5.1 DNS Service levels – chaired by Hiro Hotta of JPRS

-         .de presented by Sabina Dolderer

-         .au presented by Chris Wright of AusRegistry

-         .jp presented by Shinta Sato of JPRS


Set up ccTLD SLA WG which includes tools, co-location of name servers, etc.


5.2 New Authoritative Name Server presented by Jaap Akkerhuis


·        Why nsd: code diversity; simplicity; performance; open source

·        What is nsd? Authoritative-only DNS name server. (no recursion, no caching, no dynamix update, no zone trasnfers); implemented from scratch; high performance; DNSSec ready; well tested


nsd-1.0.2 software is available at


5.3 Drafting and Approving Final Documents


·        cc-IANA WG Proposal (Plan B) by Willie Black of .uk


Three activities - Technical, Legal, Political


Sabine Dolderer of .de - How do you decide who can hold the contract and issue with redelegation section for change of organisation even voluntary?


Willie Black - These are the questions that the WG will work on.


Patricio Ploblete of .cl – It needs to be clarified.  This is Plan B, instead this looks like Plan A 'prime' to me.  It risks make it into parallel with voluntary choice.  Other issues then arise such as transition issues.


Nigel Roberts – We need to have agreed report back date.


John Demco of .ca:  Is this a specific instance of the matrix provided by Assistance Group? (Yes)   What is thinking on legal contractual relationship with A-Root.


Willie Black of .uk – It could be as per now (i.e., via DoC); or it could be GAC support to get DoC to instruct A-Root to action the requests.  Latter is probably the future, and would need a contract.


Chris Disspain of .au - What is the status of this document?  If Plan B is OK, but first paragraph looks like Plan A.


Willie Black – That is correct, documents background. But if we wish to publish, we need to add a bit to first paragraph to make clear that is Plan B.


Peter Dengate Thrush - Does this expose us to capture by anyone, e.g., GAC or ITU?


Willie Black - No more than now!  I felt yesterday GAC joint meeting is sympathetic to idea.   For ITU, it don't offer services but would be policy area.


Mike Mulane of .ca - If it is going to be published, then tone down or remove section on delegation which needs negotiation with GAC.


Steven (?) – I am sceptical that his government will pull out of IANA.  What makes you think that GAC feels this way.


Willie Black of .uk - by looking at reaction, not words.


Allivie (?) -  like a more detailed view of Agenda-timeline


Willie Black – We need an approval from this meeting to start and will do.


Elisabeth Porteneuve of .fr - is this project addressing GAC concerns about delegation?


Willie Black - Yes.


Patricio Ploblete – I think we don't include this at all.  And this proposal should not be published yet.  We have not had enough time to consider.  Can we just report that we have set up WG for fine tuning?


Moved by Nigel Roberts and seconded by BS


“ THAT the ccTLDs note with thanks to the work on Plan B, a project to define a cc-IANA, done by Dr Willie Black and colleagues in developing this proposal and requests that they continue this work and produce a final version by end of December 2002”


The meeting approved this motion with abstention from .au, .ca, .no and .fr




Moved by Maureen Cubberly (.ca) and seconded by Sabine Dolderer of .de


“ THAT the ccTLDs welcomed work which has been done by the Assistance Group and the opportunity for further two way communication that this proposal provides”


The meeting approved unanimously with no abstention.


Peter Dengate Thrush noted that Alejandro Pisanty had contacted him to offer apology to ccTLDs for his comments the previous day, and with offer to work together as closely as possible.


5.4 ccTLD Communique

will be presented to ICANN Board of Directors during Public Forum tomorrow.


The meeting expressed sincere appreciation with big applause to Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of this meeting, for his hard work and great contribution to ccTLD community.


Meeting Adjourn.