CCTLD SUPPORT ORGANISATION
MEETING IN MARINA DEL REY
Representatives of approximately 45 country code managers met in Marina del Rey, Los Angeles, California on November 11 and 12, 2001. A list of the country codes which were present, or appointed proxies will be posted with this communique to the website.
The country code managers record their grateful thanks to the Marina del Rey meeting organisers for arranging this forum for continuing the important work of the international component of ICANN.
1.1 In Stockholm the ccTLD community began the process of withdrawal from the DNSO and forming a Support Organisation to represent country code interests in ICANN. (See www.wwtld.org)
1.2 In Montevideo, ccTLD managers agreed that there was a narrow range of issues appropriate for inclusion in an SO policy making process. (See www.wwtld.org)
1.3 In Marina del Rey further progress has been made in defining the nature of the Support Organisation, and its processes. Features include:
§ Membership will be by application by those entities, legal or natural, which are responsible for running a ccTLD registry.
§ There will be a ccSO Council, constituted by 15 elected representatives, three from each of the five ICANN regions.
§ The conduct of the ccSO, including its elections, policy-making processes and working procedures will be transparent to the members, and to the whole ICANN community.
§ The ICANN principle of geodiversity will apply in relation to all elected positions within the SO.
§ A definition of the level of consensus necessary for consensus policy making was adopted, requiring an affirmative vote of 2/3 of members in each of the five ICANN geographic regions.
1.4 Discussions with other members of the ICANN family have also progressed.
1.5 A detailed set of questions was received from the g- registry constituency, and answered. In general, although highlighting the differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs, the exchange reveals the similar interest both communities have in the development of consensus policies and a “thin” ICANN. The questions and answers are attached, and will be posted to the ccTLD and ga lists, our website.
1.6 A presentation was made to the Government Advisory Committee on the development of the SO proposal, and a request was made for an expression of support from the GAC for the concept in principle.
2.1 Managers received detailed reports from ccTLD technical experts on security issues. These reports were provided to the GAC, and to the ICANN seminar. Preliminary analysis shows that the internet worked unaffected through the events of September 11, 2001, although some countries experienced problems.
2.2 An important conclusion is that we need to strengthen the distributed nature of control of the internet.
2.3 Further analysis will permit the cctld managers to meet their responsibilities as trustees for the local internet communities by assessing and planning to manage the risks involved.
3. Internationalised (Multilingual) Domain Names.
3.1 Presentations were received from MINC on developments with internationalised domain names. The managers will continue to be involved in this issue.
4. Contract with ICANN
4.1 Managers noted with disappointment the statement unilaterally rejecting the ccTLd contract which was issued by the CEO, Stuart Lynn to the meeting. No reasons were provided.
4.2 He said that ICANN will never sign a contract for services.
4.3 Managers noted that ICANN was not able to enter contracts with the root server operators, but may be entering Memoranda of Understanding. Such an approach might be usefully considered by ccTLD managers.
5.1 Several managers confirmed there remained problems with having change requests attended to in a timely fashion. This represents a potential security problem.
5.2 European managers reported that IANA staff had confirmed to a meeting in Slovenia on 21/22 September that no re-delegations were going to occur without a contract between ICANN and the ccTLD, even if the re-delegation de facto already has been taken place.
5.3 This appears to be in breach of the conditions under which IANA operates, and which ICANN has assumed. It may also be an abuse of monopoly.
5.4 It is also a problem that in a technical emergency, there is no way of making urgent changes.
6. ALSC Report.
Useful discussions took place with representatives of the ALSC on the relationship between at large issues and cctld matters. Further discussions will occur before the Ghana meeting.