COMMUNIQUÉ
of
the
CCTLD
SUPPORT ORGANISATION
(IN FORMATION)
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.Internet Security
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.