APTLD
Venue: Kehad
Room, Shangri-la Hotel
Chair: Peter Dengate Thrush
Attended by: a total of 30 member
representatives from .au, .cn, .cx, .hk, .jp, .kr, .my, .nu, .nz, .ph,
.sg, .th, .tw, .vn, and Afilias;
observer from and CENTR;
other participants from .ae, .af, .cl, gi,
.ir, .mx, .pw, .za, APNIC, CAT TELECOM
PUBLIC Co, Ltd, LACTLD, WEBCC.
Meeting opened at
1. The Chair, Peter, opened the meeting by
greeting the members to APTLD Meeting in
2. Peter suggested sending get well wish to
Prof. Kilnan Chon as knowing his injury and noticed
that request for meeting agenda amendment can be raised anytime during the
meeting.
3. Peter welcomed the guest speaker, CENTR’s newly appointed General Manager Mr. Giovanni Seppia, to give the members a presentation on CENTR
Overview.
Guest Session with CENTR GM Mr. Giovanni Seppia
1. CENTR’s new GM Mr. Giovanni Seppia
gave a presentation on CENTR overview.
During the Q&A, some questions raised by members:
2. Peter raised the issue of restructuring
CENTR membership fee band and Giovanni replied CENTR is currently restructuring
the membership fees and created a Funding Group, which concluded to reduce the
fee band categories to three or four layers (still under discussion). It is a
five years plan, started from the next year, with the objective a fair
distribution of fees among CENTR members. The CENTR has received several
positive responses from members that they are willing to join this plan.
3. Peter continued asking what will be the
new membership fee bands for CENTR. Giovanni answered ��30,000, ��20,000, ��10,000
and ��5,000.
4. Yumi asked about CENTR’s
outreach program and Giovanni answered there in no a concrete plan yet, but it
is mainly based on volunteer donation work. So far there is no request received
yet, maybe will identify the needs in certain developing countries through
international organisations.
5. Shariya asked about the lesson learned regarding
secretariat operation as CENTR grows. Giovanni said as a newly appointed GM and
from a formal registry (.it) member’s point of view, it is a good chance to
compare and learn from event organized by CENTR from a different perspective
and to share views and best practice among members, which he thinks this is
also one of the best achievements of an organisation like CENTR. This is also
one of the advantages of taking part in this organisation: to well communicate
with members.
6. Paul Kane further explained the reason for
restructuring the fee band is currently 2/3 of the membership paid 1/3 of the
budget, putting it in other way, 6 registries paid 2/3 of budget. As membership
grew, CENTR hopes to change the model not to rely so much on the large
registries. There is also the need is to embrace all sections of the community
including emerging registry that can’t pay. A key element is what the members
and potential members want from CENTR. Information flow is important. Smaller
members might also contribute information which large members missed or they
are going to experience. So CENTR welcomes members from outside the European
region. One does have to be aware of that CENTR is very European centric. One
of the main things that many members wanted is to liaise with the European
Commission to find out what is going on in
7. Gabriella added it is hard to find out
what members wanting from Secretariat. CENTR also visits members randomly and
asks about their needs and current situation, and finds out if they need
workshop etc., and it is a very good way.
8. Chris asked about IANA shadowing. Paul
replied CENTR is trying to identify the problems and find a mechanism to solve
the problems. According the 6 months period survey (1st October
2003-29th February 2004), there were 78 changes in the IANA database
and most of them were ccTLD related. The time taken in the IANA process varied from
1 day to 168 days, with average of 23.6 days. One of the problems of identification
is, authenticating a request going to IANA is being
genuine form registry. A number of registries are provided CENTR and CENTR make
it available to the IANA the specific PGP key. The next problem of IANA process
is the time spent in the
9. Chris continued to ask about the consideration
of introducing of PGP keys as been ad hoc basis or cross the Board and everyone
based on agreement. Paul replied three years ago, CENTR has done an internal
study. PGP key in certain countries is not allowed. So, this paper again came
up with 5 means of authentication (for example PGP or accurate letter with
approved signature), which is required under different mechanisms. CENTR is
starting to build the PGP structure to make sure it works.
10. Peter asked about working more and better
with each other. Giovanni answered both could start with regular dialogue,
communication and agreement to work together toward certain goal and make the
Internet better. This meeting and information is quite helpful. APTLD is
welcome to give comments, using CENTR as a communication channel and exchanging
ideas with European ccTLDs. Communication is the first step of everything.
11. Chris asked about why CENTR’s
membership includes non-European countries. Paul said CENTR membership is open
to anyone, but will be advised that CENTR is focusing on European issues. CENTR
welcome a broad membership of associate members and observers to exchange and
share information and facts. CENTR would like to work closely with all regional
associations, which will be beneficial to each other, trying to build a united
community.
12. Shariya raised the issue about CENTR’s future activities regarding WSIS and the CENTR’s position. Paul pointed out that the WSIS concept in
not a new idea. WSIS is a complicated mass. CENTR has been active in
13. Peter gave some information in return.
APTLD has the vast region, and grab different cultures and problems. He thanked
CENTR for coming and sharing information.
Updates from APTLD Committees
1. Membership/Sponsorship Committee Report by Yumi 0n future plan and wish to
liaison with CENTR on outreach events.
1.1
Peter
mentioned that recently a travel application from is finalised. Members can use
it for travel with APTLD financial supports.
1.2
David
Farrar said InternetNZ has just signed a MOU with two
UN bodies, UNESCO New Zealand (the New Zealand Branch UNESCO) and the United
Nations Development Fund and we called it the International Pacific
Partnership, primarily we provide expertise and knowledge and they provide
money. They are hoping to do significant outreach and development in the
Pacific region. It was just signed two weeks ago, and there is no project yet.
1.3
Peter
suggested membership/sponsorship team takes opportunity to make visit to
candidates while you are in the region to get the information out.
1.4
Ching
suggested supporting ccTLD engineers to technical events in the region.
1.5
Chris
said we should try to find out what smaller Pacific ccTLDs want. Keith and Chris
will join the ISOC AP and try to reach to potential members to join APTLD.
The meeting recess for a break from
2. ICANN Relations Committee Report by Peter.
2.1
David
Farrar raised some issues regarding wwTLD and ccNSO. Does APTLD want to have a
global ccTLD body? If so, do you want the current wwTLD grouping? Or a MOU
suggested by Elisabeth Porteneuve among the five
regional organisations? Dr. Lee agreed to have a serious discussion about
forming a forum in which all ccTLD can communicate and participate. She also
agreed to have discussion on APTLD’s position on this issue.
2.2 Peter asked for each member’s position. He
assumed David has clarified .nz’s position. Dr. Lee
said .kr recognizes the importance of a global wwTLD body. Chris said .au understands
the current ccNSO has narrow scope; it is needed to have a forum for discussing
large number of general ccTLD issues associated with ICANN or not. .au is
equally enthusiastic to see a global ccTLD body. Sultan Mohd.
Al Shamsi (.ae) and
2.3 Shariya suggested reversing the question
to: is there anyone who is not keen on setting up some forms of structure for
this (global ccTLD body). (no one objects) She pointed out that the question is
what the structure should be and asked David Farrar to repeat the structure
again for further discussion. David said there are three primary choices: (1)
continuation of current wwTLD structure; (2) formal federation or MOU between 5
regional organisations; (3) setting up an entirely new body.
2.4 Peter thought status quo structure should
not be an option due to European’s withdraws. David replied the AdCom is listed
as default until we have a new structure. Chris said the call for MOU might be
a problem because ccTLD must join a regional organisation in order to get
involved. Shariya added that means ccTLD manager will need to join 3 organisations
(global body, regional organisation and ccNSO).
2.5 Joel thought it is unfair to those ccTLDs
who can not afford to fly and attend the meetings. The views presented will only
be the one who can afford to travel. A more democratic way is one country one
vote. Regional organisation function is good. ccTLD
can voice at regional organisation and regional organisation can voice at
global occasion. Joel personally favours on-line meeting where speaking and
hearing language will not be a problem.
2.6 Shariya pointed out that there is a
structure debate on this matter. Peter did not think there is anything or a
clear direction for the wwTLD meeting on Wednesday. It
seems to support a general conception of open membership and lean structure.
2.7 Dr. Lee suggested a loose structure might
be an option. If you want things done, you need a lot of commitments. If you don’t
want lots of commitment, we have to be satisfied a loose, occasional on-line discussion
with no expectation of getting anything seriously important and done. There are
two extremes. There will probably not have resources to have another global
organisation besides ccNSO, so a loose structure might be an option in term of
.kr.
2.8 David Farrar said the European countries
most concern about what model of ccTLD grouping might take. He suggested inviting
CENTR to propose a workable/acceptable model. Asking those who have strong view
to come up a proposal, and then we can discuss and decide.
2.9 Chris thought we might be running too fast
here. He believed the first thing to go at the meeting on Wednesday is to get a
clear idea of what the purpose and reason of such an organisation is. We need
to have some consensus on the reason of having this organisation. He suggested
attending the Wednesday meeting and having a general talk with everyone about
the reason rather than putting APTLD’s position on it.
2.10
Paul Kane
agreed with Joel’s point. A vast number of ccTLDs has never been into ICANN
meeting, and some might not be aware of what ICANN is about. The linguistic
issue is another problem. Therefore, having an open forum to all ccTLDs is very
important. He further clarified some issues raised regarding wwTLD/AdCom, ccNSO and the arrangement of wwTLD manager
meeting. He said CENTR has not withdrawn from wwTLD and AdCom, and believed
that wwTLD is an important community service and will support it. CENTR has a
number of issues regarding ccNSO, but it has noting to do with ccNSO. CENTR
will be pleased to participate in ccNSO as a liaison role as CENTR Board agreed.
3. Technical Committee Report by Prof. Kanchana.
3.1
Hotta-san
thought it is better to find a place for people to go together and for trainers
and trainees to go. APRICOT will be a good option.
3.2 Kanchana replied an APRIOCT
training once a year will not be sufficient. There should be a place where new
ccTLDs engineers can go anytime in the year. She wished to have free hands to
organise the training workshops for maybe one year because the mailing list has
no response.
3.3 Paul Wilson added the training requires
extensive travels to the countries where the training is needed. APNIC can gain
by collaborating and cooperating with others for the training. He expressed his
interest of working with APTLD, which will be useful. The coming training in
3.4 Paul Kane said CENTR faces the same
questions from techie communications regarding the training. CENTR is willing
to work with APTLD in regard to giving the code points to the technical
community.
4. Constitutional Committee by Shariya. She
reported that the final document filing for incorporation is completed.
5. Meeting Committee by Chris
5.1
Chris
briefed updateed on the Committee’s current
performance. He said he is putting together a pack of hosting APTLD meeting,
which will send for Board’s consideration once completed. The next meeting will
take place in
5.2 Peter added that we need to get the call
for meeting host early as many require at least six months notice in advance.
6. Audit Committee by Chan-Ki. The Board decided to hire auditor during the 30th April
on-line meeting, and 2003 auditing report has just completed by Deloitte & Touche.
Secretariat Report
1. Secretariat Update by Ian Chiang
1.1
Peter
suggested members to look at the RFP and thanked the work done by TWNIC. InternetNZ is thinking about responding the RFP and will
discuss with the Board.
2. Financial Report and 2003 Audit Report
2.1
Peter
moved to accept the financial report. It was accepted unanimously.
Presentation from Lunch Sponsor-WEBCC
WEBCC gave an introduction presentation on WEBCC before
lunch break.
Lunch break from
Peter announced the morning
session is closed at
Member Meeting reconvened on
ccNSO
Update
1. ccNSO update by Chris on ccNSO Council Member
appointment (three representatives from each region), and the preliminary
teleconference among the council members. When the ccNSO bylaw was negotiated,
a lot time was spent agreeing details on policy development process. It is also
agreed lots of logistic matters outside the party of policy development process
will be left to ccNSO members to agree on itself. That is partly what ccNSO
meeting of next two days is about. Currently, there’s no rule and procedure in
place to cover things like quorum and so on. ccNSO
meeting Day 1 will have more discussion on those in detail. The issue paper has
been sent out on that particular matter.
2. Chris continued, the Council is very conscious
the fact that they are to be guided by the members of ccNSO. That is why the
Council take a very slow process to make sure we have guidance from members on
sorts of things and the fact that real decision can only be made on the mailing
list rather than in the face-to-face meeting to ensure that everyone has input.
Until the decision is made about the things like quorum, voting percentage and
so forth, it won’t be possible for members to provide guidance to the Council
on the various matters that Council has to make a decision on the bylaws. So, it
is decided to go through points, which is needed to be decide and made recommendations
to the members, such as identify the regional organisation and appoint liaison;
to fill ICANN Board seat 11 and 12; election of Council Chair and Vice Chair;
and appointment of ccNSO nomination to NomCom
(Currently, there were not volunteer from members present).
3. Dr. Lee inquired if any APTLD member would
like to volunteer for NomCom. There were not
volunteers from members present.
4. Paul Kane said CENTR wishes to be involved
in the process as a liaison.
ICANN Issues 1: ICANN Budgets
1. An overview report on ICANN Budget Proposal for 04-05 by Hotta-san.
2. ICANN Vice President Paul Verhoef was invited to APTLD meeting and he expected to
have more interaction with APTLD in the future and schedule more extensive
discussions on various topics. He shared some points regard to ICANN budget.
2.1 ICANN is an organisation in transition
from academic centric to professional footing as the size grew, and matters such
as security and stability issues grew complicated. ICANN feels necessary to put
forward a realistic budget to reflect the demand. ICANN needs substantial
details from the community as to what is not required of ICANN to do.
2.2 ICANN budget is large also because the
global operation.
2.3 There is still disagreement among the
stockholders in regard to the budget, and discussion will be needed.
3. David Farrar said .nz
is happy to make contribution as made to ICANN in the past for several
services, but is not in agreement with the spending on lawsuits.
4. Paul Kane expressed CENTR has an account
to fund ICANN with contributions from around ten members and has noticed ICANN
that funding is available, but has not received response from ICANN yet. And
Joel suggested separating the expenses for ccTLDs, and we can review afterwards
whether we should fund more or reduce it.
5. Paul Verhoef
replied ICANN has problem with the CENTR funding models and to comply with the
conditions. The request to identify the works and have stockholders decide if
they are to be funded will not work either. Paul also replied it is impossible
to separate the expenses on ccTLDs. There are staffs engaging in ccTLD matters,
and those works should be account for too.
6. Peter asked there are expressions to fund
ICANN, but is there any appropriate policy for us to consistently follow. Paul Verhoef responded there are disagreements as how to
distribute the cost among ccTLDs. There are options, but no agreement. There
need to be an agreement to fellow.
7. Dr. Lee said the issue is that there is no
agreement on the cost itself, and we need to know why the cost is needed before
we can work out a plan on how the ccTLD community will split the cost. Paul Verhoef replied the issue is more complex. There are three
questions to be answered: (1) what is the cost in total, what is ICANN supposed
to do and the costs associated with doing that; (2) who should contribute and
how is the formula of division between those groups; (3) how does every group
find formula for contribution. So, there are number of important steps to go
through. ICANN hopes the combination of this budget plus strategic plan to be
published in couple of months, which will provide with a clear insight. He
continued to answer that ICANN does not see it is very easy to split the costs
and associated activities.
8. Paul Kane said CENTR does not have
pre-conditions for the funding. He further explained the portions of CENTR’s funding to ICANN. He agreed with Joel and Dr. Lee
that cost should be justified before discussion how to split them. And David
Farrar thought it will be not difficult to find the portion.
ICANN Issues 2: IANA Administrative Procedure
1. IANA GM Doug Barton was invited to brief
on IANA’s administrative procedure. He first explained
that historically root server administration procedure is to handle root server
delegation upon request. There are two important tasks: that the evaluation process
has been documented which TLD managers can fellow; another is to handle the request
from TLD mangers to remove data by an email explaining the conditions and
request to ensure operational stability.
2. Peter asked has IANA received any response
from individual ccTLD regarding the removal of data. Doug replied there were lessons
learned in undergoing the procedures and wished to continue the procedures in
the future. It is the IANA’s responsibility to serve
the ccTLD community. IANA has no problem should a ccTLD decide to turn off
certain undesirable ccTLD. The situation concerned is when the query rate becomes
too high for the root server operation.
3. Hotts-san agreed to let IANA to conduct a roll-back
of root server data.
4. David Farrar asked Doug to describe the
procedure for a change of technical contact. Doug answered, most frequently
required service are contact change. We need to make sure that the party
requesting the change is authorised to do so, and automatically we need to make
sure that the sponsoring organisation is aware of the request to change. Our
current procedure is to make sure everyone is aware of the change and everybody
has to approve the change.
5. Paul Kane mentioned CENTR did a study on
IANA service, and there is great significance of improvement in IANA services
under Doug’s team. He suggested in the future the documentation of procedures
can be made through bottom-up process. Doug responded that there is difference
between policy and procedure. This particular document is the process of IANA
internal working procedures. It is posted to ask for suggestions, but it should
be differentiated from policy.
6. Before the end of this session, Doug
mentioned he is currently seeking experienced staff and has published the job
opportunity on the web site, and welcomes recommendation from the AP region or
others.
Reports on APEET Status
1.
2. Paul Kane said NIC-AC runs
four ENUM registries, and would like to participate in the APEET trail.
Report on APNG Activities in
Members Meeting adjourned on