APTLD Kuala Lumpur AGM Minutes (draft)
26 February 2004,
Venue:
State Room,
Palace of the Golden Horses
Chair: Peter Dengate Thrush
Attended by: a total of 28 member representatives from .au, .cn,
.jp, .kr, .lk, .my, .nu, .nz,.sg, .th, .tw, .vn, and
observers from Afilias and DotAsia.
Meeting
opened at 9:15am
The Chair, Peter, opened the meeting by greeting the
members, thanking the local host and Secretariat for coordinating this meeting,
and welcomes the guest, Mr. Doug Barton, to give the members an update on IANA.
Guest
Session with IANA GM, Mr. Doug Barton
Doug expressed thanks for the invitation come to
APTLD meeting, and thanked Shariya for coordinating this invitation. Doug said it’s important to open up the
communication on the operation of Internet, and that’s what we are doing here
now. The presentation given is
entitled “Exciting ICANN/IANA News. The presentation includes introduction on
IANA and Doug himself, the new management team at ICANN, new strategic vision
on IANA and the new workflow system that’s planed to launch after the
During the Q&A, there was a discussion on the
ICANN Bylaw, appendix C on ccNSO, regarding the level 2 ccTLD Registry Name
Servers and how related policy will be developed. Doug replied that what I am working on
the method by which the ICANN staff is going to use that data that
submitted. There’s no policy
implication in the web form how it submitted and how it looks like to get to
the back-end of the system. There
are certainly implications how the data is used when it gets into the
system. So I confuse where is the
overlap is there. The other thing
is that the system I am working on is something going to be used by all the TLD
managers but not just the country code.
I think we need to be very careful about the winning the roles of the
operation functions which as you point it out are the responsibility of IANA,
and the policy function is really deal with how the information used when it
gets to IANA. And the danger there
quite simply is that if you feel that an attempting the micro-manager, the
operations, the IANA is the way to go, I would just say I work it whole, but
the reality is not a practicable way of either one of us getting on with works
need to be done.
Shariya asked how many IANA staffs are there, and
when a bulk request is made, and how is the scope of workload on ccTLD in
comparison to the total of IANA works, and how much it costs to run IANA.
Doug replied that running IANA costs will be
answered when the strategic plan is published, it will include a clearer
picture of the operational cost of IANA. The IANA staffs consist me (Doug
Barton) ,one full-time person (Michelle), part-time
(Steven), and an equivalent full time administrative assistant, and is looking
to increase of one more staff in the calendar of 2004. The composition of IANA function
comprises of the registry (10%), RIR (10-15%), and the rest splits equally to
IETF and TLDs.
Center is interested to contribute to the cost of performing IANA
function. But they are looking
forward to some obligations delivered before transferring the fund. Most groups had expressed support for
the success of ICANN. As a result,
ICANN staff has then been basically researching various methods by which we
can, in an open, transparent manner, accept contributions from communities and
the ccTLDs.
Ching wanted to be clear that no government can ask the DOC for a
removal of another ccTLD from the database or forced a re-delegation.
Doug: At
this point, the interaction of the soon be-formed ccNSO and the top of that
nature is that I don’t have a transmit information on, so the policy role on
situation like that cannot be answered.
Ching: Who can request change to the ISO 3166 list?
Doug: The policy now is very black and white for
ICANN to adopt the ISO 3166 list, there are discussions about the flexibility
and appropriateness of adopting ISO 3166, such as the .eu
case, and there is certainly room for flexibility, and the ccNSO is going to
have the role to determine the way forward on that.
Peter: Why is the work carried on under “IANA”
instead of “ ICANN”?
Doug: Simply, because ICANN has a contract with DOC
to perform the “IANA function”. And
due to the historical background of IANA, people are familiar with the term
“IANA” and it’s functions. But, we are currently trying to convey
to people that the IANA function is performed by ICANN, and they are actually
the same thing.
Yumi: When will the strategic plan be announced?
Doug: It’s currently been reviewed by the Board,
once it’s accomplished, it will to be announced on the ICANN website, and hope
it can be announced before the
Ching: what’s your view on the role of root zone operators?
Doug: The root zone operators are very special
situation, there are many different opinions regarding the operators. So far the operators have rejected a
formal organization, but for whatever cause, the current volunteering operation
system is working, and thought there are rooms for improvement.
Ching: How do you work with the zoon operators?
Doug: formally, the SECAC is the formal contacting
channel of the zone operators. I
know lots of root server operators on an informal basis, but formally, the
interactions are through SECAC.
Peter: What would you like us to feed back on the
security issues in relation to your proposal and what kind of process would you
like? From APTLD
or individual ccTLD managers.
Doug: It’s flexible, either with APTLD as
organization or individual ccTLD managers.
Peter asked the members to join together in thanking
Doug for meeting with APTLD.
The
meeting recess for a break from 10:30am to 11:00am
APTLD
AGM
The Chair, Peter, opened the AGM on 11:00am and
welcome members back to the morning session.
1.
Announcement
and Approval of 2004 Board Election
Peter explained that as practiced in the past, the election has done online
before the AGM so members who can not attend the AGM in person can also
participate in the election process, nevertheless, according to the
constitution, the election needs to approved at the AGM. The voting result was scrutinized by Hotta Hiroshima and Pete McCaulay,
and a formal notice of that result had been sent to members two weeks ago as
the constitution requests.
.nz moved to adopt the on-line election result,
motion seconded by .tw, and the election result is carried unanimously.
Peter congratulates to all those elected, and thank them for the willingness to
contribute APTLD matters.
2.
New Member Updates from .lk
Gihan Dias gave an introduction .lk. Currently the
.lk domain registry is an independently non- profit organization, registrations
are available under 3rd level, local presence are required for reistration, and applications are processed manually, and
that 90% of disputes can besolved through
negotiation, and there are not litigation case so far. The .lk
presentation is available here.
Peter: How many .lk domain names are registered?
Dias: There are around 3000 registrations.
Shariya asked about the relation between the .lk domain registry and the
government.
Dias: We have committee and we expect the government to make comment of their
concerns through the committees. So
far the government has not made policies related to domain name registration.
Peter thanked Dias for the presentation and welcome
him to become APTLD member.
3.
Updates from APTLD Committee
3.1.
Report of the Board
Peter presented the Board’s report to members, which highlighted the major
works carried out in 2003 since the last AGM in
3.2.
Constitutional Committee
Peter: The committee chair is in transition to be handed over to Shariya, who
is a lawyer, and lawyer in
Shriya’s report included briefing on the current
tasks of the committee and the current working mechanism (e-mail mailing list).
Chris: What’s the process to make a constitution change?
Shariya: Change needs to be done through resolution at a members meeting, but
it doesn’t have to be a f
Peter: The constitution is published on the website.
Peter moved to accept the Constitution Committee Report. .nu seconded, the
motion carried unanimously.
3.3.
Meeting Committee
Peter: The Meeting committee is a new meeting created during the Wellington
Board Meeting, and the chairmanship is to be handed over to Chris.
Chris: This committee was set up during the Wellington Board meeting, and it’s
task is to arrange APTLD future meetings and there are questions to be propose:
a) uncoupled the APTLD meeting with ICANN meetings
b) need to formally decide on how many f
c) do we want to have a tech training along with each
APTLD meeting?
Chris continued to say that the meeting committee will think of ways to answer
the above issues, and welcome any comment from the members.
Shariya: Regarding the first issue, we need to decide on what role does APTLD
wants to take in relation to ICANN issues, and maybe members can concentrate on
attending APTLD and forming decision at APTLD meeting, instead of having to go
to ICANN meetings personally.
Dias: Do we know how many f
Chris: We currently have 3, and the constitution only requires an AGM each
year. We can start with 3, and see
whether there will be needs for more meetings. Or, we can consider having a 2-day
meeting instead of the 1-day meeting we have now.
Dias: .lk who attended the workshop on Feb 24 expressed that the content of the
workshop was too basic.
Chris: Yes, maybe the workshop should concentrate more on training rather than
orientation.
Peter: The issue of the workshop content should be addressed to the technical
committee.
Chris: Will send e-mail to members before the ICANN Rome meeting to seek
comments.
Choon Sai: When will the
draft of meeting organizations be ready?
Peter: it will be confirmed shortly when the committee held it’s
next meeting.
Shariya moved to adopt the Meeting Committee Report. .jp seconded, the motion
carried unanimously.
3.4.
Membership/Sponsorship Committee
Yumi presented updates on newly approved membership
application and explained that two more application (afflias
and register.com) to be discussed and approved later today at the Board
Meeting. Updates are also given on
the current status of the Sponsoring Program, and suggested to hand over the
contact with APNIC to the Secretariat because it’s more of logistic
coordination. The update
report is available here.
Yumi mentioned about applying
funding from other organizations such ad INFODEV. Shariya answered the threshold of
INFODEV funding is to have the workshop agenda finalized and confirmed when
filing the application.
Peter: Would Keith agree to help coordinating candidates from the pacific
islands on the occasion of APNIC meeting to be held in
Keith:
Agreed.
Richard: As the chairman of ISOC Pacific Chapter, I’m in the position to help
communicating with candidates with the pacific islands, but not to make the
decision. And suggest that .bu be considered.
Peter: is there any difficulty in finding candidates from the
Dias: Kanchana might have contact information with
the ccTLDs in the
Chris: There are new faces in the GAC from our region, such as
Peter: We have the contacts and we all should help to get the contacting done.
Peter moved the Membership/Sponsorship report be accepted. Motion seconded by
.nu, the report was accepted unanimously.
3.5.
ICANN Relations Committee
Peter: Previously the job of the committee was to focus on the formation on
ccNSO, and now the focus should be on operation of ccNSO and future relation
with ICANN.
3.6.
Technical Committee
Dr. Kanchana began her report by telling she
volunteered to head the technical committee because she sees the need to
increase technical coordination among members, but a lot of coordination job
was helped by Yumi and Ian, and the contents helped
by various friends. After the first
workshop held in
Propose that the tech committee should have more activities other than the
training, there should be more technical document archiving, technical contact
name list, (these will be the focus in the second year), more training, maybe 3
regular training each year at fixed locations to reduce cost. Dr. Kanchan’s
updates are available here.
Yumi was invited to give updates on the
workshop conducted on the Tuesday.
Yumi: We need to define whether we have common target
group before organizing future trainings with APNIC.
Kanchana: The activity with APNIC should be
considered as both a training and outreach. I propose to allocate 10 thousand
dollars on organizing the workshops and volunteered to coordinate the trainings
for one more year.
Dias:
We should design the agenda and level of content according to the targets fo the workshop. Formalized policy presentations will
also be helpful.
Chris: How each member handles the policy procedure would be helpful
discussions.
Kanchana: Separating the technical workshop and
policy discussion will be a better idea to avoid confusion on what’s technical
and what’ policy.
Richard: Most of the people here attending this meeting don’t run the servers,
and the two issues should be separated.
If it’s going to be a policy meeting, the location should be at a
convenient point for everyone.
Chanki: I run the server and manage the policy, and
it would be helpful to have country updates in the next meeting so we can learn
from each other.
Vincent suggested the technical committee can be changed to NIC information
exchange.
Peter: To avoid duplications, maybe we can help other organization, such as
APNIC, to organize trainings instead of organizing our own activity.
Kanchana: The event we just had with APNIC is also
for outreach.
Peter: looking forward to more active discussion on the technical committee
mailing list on the issue.
Kanchana: I prefer to see separation of technical
issues and policy issues.
.au moved to accept the Technical Committee, jp and
.kr seconded, the motion was carried unanimously.
3.7.
Audit Committee
Chanki reported on the finance status, which includes
income, expenditure and current balance, and confirmed that the finance report
as prepared by the Secretariat was correct. The Audit Report is available here.
Peter: At this stage we should also look for an outside auditor, is there any
question on the current auditing process?
Peter move to accept the report from treasurer, motion seconded by .th, and
carried unanimously.
Before taking the lunch, there was a Lunch Sponsor
presentation on Afilias given by Ms. Desiree Miloshevic.
Peter announced the morning session is closed at
12:30pm, and will reconvene at 13:30pm
There was lunch break from 12:30 to 13:35
Meeting reconvened on 13:35
4.
Review and Approval of
Secretariat Reports
4.1.
2003 Annual Report
Ian gave a report on APTLD event highlights in 2004. The presentation is available here.
4.2.
2003 Financial Report
Ian gave a financial status
Report on 2003, from 1 January to 31 December.
Dias: Are we doing cash accounting?
Ian: The Secretariat would like to record all the income and expenditure
according to the bank statement. If
there’s any additional information, the Secretariat will put it as note. It is to let the Treasure to know the
exact numbers on the bank statement, or it might cause confusion.
Peter:
this could be discussed this afternoon at the Board Meeting.
Peter: It’s understood that TWNIC is sponsoring the running of the Secretariat,
how much would it cost to run the secretariat without the support?
Joanna: The operation cost is depended of the operation scope.
Peter: Any reason why .tv does not pay?
Ian: The secretariat’s e-mail never get any response, the secretariat would
appreciate if members have other contact information to provide.
Chris: Do we have policy to terminate membership?
Peter: It would be the task of the Constitution Committee to study into this
issue.
4.3.
2004 Action Plan
Ian presented the 2004 action plan including scheduled
meeting dates.
Dias: So it’s possible for
Peter: If
Peter suggested adding one more item as item 13 on the Secretariat appointment
schedule that “the secretariat will carry on until next AGM (2005)”. Will that be a problem for the current
secretariat?
Joanna: that will not be a problem.
Just as a reminder, in addition to organizing the AGM, the first job of
the new secretariat will be running the on-line board election.
Chris: The hand over time of the Secretariat has been decided as December 31,
though we can revisit the issue is necessary.
Shariya: It has been discussed earlier at
Peter: Does any committee have any comments on the 2004 action plan before we
review the 2004 Budget?
Yumi: Suggest to add and outreach
event in September when APNIC held its meeting in
Peter: In considering the cost involved, would it be reasonable to send a
member who is closer to
Peter
suggested a combination of local and Secretariat to attend the APNIC meeting in
Yumi: Budget of 2000USD per person including
accommodation for local and the Secretariat.
Peter: Can we move the outreach to the
Shariya: Originally, the sponsoring target was to sponsoring the Perth Meeting.
Peter: Can we change the sponsoring target after the February to
Yumi: Yes, agree to revise it as “progress
sponsorship in south
Peter: Any other committee that needs special provision to the action plan for
2004?
Peter: Does cooperation, listed as item 2-3 of the action plan, requires any
funding?
Ian: Cooperation can be done via e-mail, no extra cost is proposed.
Peter moved to accept the 2004 Action Plan, and .au seconded. The action plan was accepted.
4.4.
2004 Budget Plan
Ian presented the budget
plan for 2004.
Chanki: There should be an increase of administration
fee to
Peter: How much does the workshop in KL cost? And is
Peter: This is a deficit budget plan for 2004, is
there any more comments?
Chris: We are looking at decrease of membership income too.
Peter: Let’s propose changing the workshop budget to 5,000 for the
Chris: It should be sufficient including sending an instructor.
Shariya: There is no budget to send secretariat or Board representative to
ICANN meeting or CENTR meeting, should there be any budget to do that?
Peter: Is there a need to do that? And we might need more policy developed before
paying for a Board member to meetings.
Shariya: It’s something to be discussed if there’s the need.
Chris: We can change the sponsoring budget from 40,000 to 20,000.
Peter: With the two reductions, the budget plan is again in surplus.
Hotta: APRICOT is trying to promote
the Internet development in the AP region.
How about thinking about sponsoring the APRICOT? The lowest level of
sponsorship is 5 thousand dollars.
In addition, APstar might ask APTLD to
financially support them.
Peter: How does everyone think about sponsoring the other AP
organization/event?
Yumi: It would be a good idea to reach out.
Peter: Do we see any benefit in the sponsorship?
Ching: The sponsorship will not directly help to
recruit members, but it will be a good way to reach out.
Peter: Would it be a good idea to put down 5,000 dollars and call for proposal
then decide on whom to sponsor?
Richard: It might go a lot further to use that budget to go to other places to
reach out rather than have our logo on event banners.
Peter: What do members think?
Shariya: I think we should try to fill up our membership.
Peter: If there are no other comments, there will be no allocation on
sponsoring the AP event or organization.
The new budget is displayed on the screen for a final review.
Ian continued to conclude the secretariat report by introducing the list of the
current board members and APTLD members.
And asked if any member has any information on how to get in touch with
.cx and .tj, please inform
the secretariat.
Peter: We will now go ahead to pass serious of resolutions on the secretariat
reports.
Peter move to pass 2003 Financial Report and Annual Report, .my seconded,
motion passed and accepted.
Peter moved to adopt the 2004 action plan, .au seconded, the action plan was
adopted unanimously.
Peter moved to adopt the budget plan for 2004 as it has just been revised, .nu
seconded, the 2004 budget plan was adopted unanimously.
Peter
further moved to thank the secretariat for all the work done in 2003, members
seconded and clapped to express thanks.
5.
ICANN Issues
5.1.
Upcoming ICANN Meetings
Peter, the ICANN meeting for
5.2.
Update on ccNSO by Launching
Group
Chris: There’s the requirement; currently we have more thank 30 members with
more than 4 from each region except
Peter: please update us on the ccNSO agenda in
Chris: Yes, there will be a ccNSO on 3rd March, members and non-members are all
welcome. The agenda include
discussion on the best practices for security in the ccTLD, IANA and ccTLDs structuring a channel of input to IANA issues and
procedures, updates from the Launching group, discussion on the upcoming ccNSO
election, and by laws clarifications, but will not discuss amending the
constitution.
Shariya: Can you give some highlights on the clarification?
Chris: They are, basically, meeting of ccTLD and the members of ccNSO to
identify 3 or 4 clauses of the bylaw.
Peter: If no other question, we thank Chris for the update.
Peter before the next presentation, what do you think the term
“interoperability” means? It’s in
the bylaw but we have trouble defining it.
This is something to think about.
5.3.
Updates on ALAC activity in AP
5.4.
Discussion on ccTLD AdCom
Peter: I have served on the ccTLD AdCom for 3 or 4 years Since the drop out of
GNSO, it was decided that we still want to keep the wwTLD
forum and that the operation will continue as usual, although it involved a lot
of hard work and late night teleconference, things worked out, until BK Kim
resigned, and Ahbisak took over and continued to work
until just before the Rio meeting, and Peblo took
over to organize the Rio ccTLD meeting.
The things carried on as “Adhoc”, the
Chris: If I keep on the ccNSO cap, then I have no problem operating under
ICANN. But as .au, my question is
do we need another organization, a term which I don’t
like is a “trade organization” to gather opinions from the non-ccNSO
members. Should we not concentrate
on coordinating with the other regional organization instead of having another organization.
Peter: It’s nearly time to re-elect your representative in the ccTLD AdCom, do
you want to do that? And how do you
know if the elected people are doing the job. Another question, what if ICANN fails,
would it be better to have another organization in the meanwhile like what we
have now?
Chris: What do we have now?
Peter: We have the wwTLD website, the mailing list
and the database. Shariya, what’s
your view as a non-ccNSO member?
Shariya: the situation is not clear, and I think this is the chance for APTLD
to come out and presenting our positions on issues. Despite of the disagreement, but I have
faith that people will still communicate, either through the secretariat or the
chairman, and organize the upcoming meeting as the others have done it.
Peter: While we are willing to organize the meeting, but do we want to organize
a meeting for non-members of the ccNSO.
Chris: APTLD will be involved and liaison the meeting organization, if the
ccTLD organization, which ever it is, approach us to ask for help to set up the
meeting, what would happen next. The CENTR has a position that AdCom is
dysfunctional, and Lacnic and NANIC have positions.
Peter: North American has a position that they agree a coordination body among
the regional organizations.
Chris: I think it’s good that we have a position especially since this will be
discussed in
Peter: CENTR has published its statement without ant consultation. Their
position could wait to see whether ccNSO is a sufficient organization.
Chris: There is an difference, where as the people sitting at this APTLD
meeting are mostly ccNSO members, and where as the people sit at the CENTR
meeting are mostly non-members, so it’s actually for the non-members to said
what they want, say whether they want and ad com.
Peter: Could we take a position of wait and see?
Chris: Instead of saying we will wait and see, maybe we could said that we’ve discussed the issue and it’s up to the
members and non-members to said what want. Or, we could just do nothing.
Chris: How about saying AP representative on the AdCom will sit down with
representative of other regions.
Peter: That’s a good idea.
Chris: Yes, because there is the AdCom and there is the regional organization.
Peter: Is there any other comment? Could Chris help to draft the wording for
the position?
5.5.
APTLD on GAC Principles
Shariya expressed the purpose of this is to brief members on the current
developments of the GAC ccTLD WG on revising the ccTLD principles, and see if
there should be an APTLD position on this issue.
Chris: I can give some update on a recent talk with Sharil,
the Chairman of GAC, who doubts if anything is going to happen in
Peter: I can give you the view of
Chris: The problem of a regional position is that there might be different
views on the issue as there are different model of operation, some are run by
government, some run by non-profit and some run by company.
Peter: In terms of how policy purpose, any ccTLD related policy should go to
ccNSO first, not the regional organization, so suggest that we say the issue
should be addressed to ccNSO for communication.
Shariya: At the next ICANN meeting in KL, we might be asked to organize a
meeting with the GAC, and it would be beneficial to talk and see what everybody
thinks.
Peter: We can put it down in our resolution that we will work on organizing
discussion meeting in KL.
Ching: We should each go back and talk to our own GAC
and see if there’s consensus to arrange the discussion.
Chris: Are you saying that APTLD should not pass a resolution that the GAC
principle should be discussed with ccNSO first?
Ching: Yes, but before we do that we all make sure
that we talk to our GAC representative.
Peter: I got five elements to APTLD position on this:
1. We note the further development of the GAC principles;
2. We note that we address this issues associated with ccTLD
delegation and re-delegation;
3. Invite the GAC to present the principles to discuss with the
ccNSO;
4. APTLD is going to organize a meeting with GAC representatives
to discuss issues of interest including the GAC principle in KL;
5. Before the GAC meeting, we encourage all APTLD members to
discuss the issues with GAC representatives.
Chris: Currently there are response from CENTR and
Peter: We will go ahead with the 5 points of feedback as presented.
Peter: We can now look at the resolution wording on the resolution on the AdCom issue.
Chris: Resolved that:-
a) APTLD notes with regret the unilateral withdrawal by CENTR of
support for the ccTLD ADCOM.
b) The APTLD instruct its representatives on the ADCOM to liaise
at ICANN Rome with the other ADCOM members from North America, Latin America
and
Meeting
recess for coffee Break at 16:00
6.
Other Business
6.1.
.asia
proposal
A dot Asia TLD initiative was introduced by Mr. Che Hoo Chen, the presentation is
available here.
Peter: Signing a LOI is an issue that requires further discussion, suggest that
members submit your comment via e-mail and the Board will discuss the issue on
line.
Chris: Could you provide more documentary and sample of LOI?
Che Hoo: Yes.
Peter: Any one would like to advise the Board to refrain from further
discussion into this issue? If
there’s not, we thank Mr. Cheng for the update.
6.2.
ENUM
Peter: Do you want our technical committee to be in touch with you? Dr. Kanchana what’s your view?
Ching: Yes.
Kanchana: Fine.
6.3.
WSIS
Peter: We decided in Busan that we will take position and talk to our GAC in
relation to the WSIS, and I presented Ramesh’s update
report on WSIS at the ICANN Carthage meeting, and again all ccTLD agreed to
decide to take a stand on WSIS. On
next Thursday in
Peter suggested the APTLD’s position remind as the Busan resolution.
Richard: Is it an open workshop?
Peter: Yes, it’s open to everyone.
At 16:30 Peter declare the 2004 APTLD AGM close.
AGM
2004 adjourned on 16:30