Personal tools
You are here: Home InternetNZ Activity International Archive Shanghai ICANN Meeting Report

Shanghai ICANN Meeting Report


November 6 2002


  • Council has received copies of my rough notes on the meetings I attended as the .nz delegate, namely: APTLD (Oct 26), ccTLD (Oct 27-29), JET (Oct 30), and ICANN Board Meeting (Oct 31). I will tidy these up and place them in the Council-only area for reference as they contain sensitive material. I also wrote a summary of the first three days of meetings which I posted to the members list.
  • This was the first full ICANN meeting I attended since Montevideo in Sept 2001. In the meantime the Chair of the International Affairs Committee (IAC) attended the hastily revised LA meeting on Security in late 2001 and Domainz paid for Don Stokes to attend for the technical discussions. The President and the IAC Chair attended the March ICANN meeting in Accra, and the IAC Chair and IAC member Cr Northover attended the June Bucharest meeting as neither the President nor myself could attend because of the AGM. In addition, IAC member Cr Bourne (a last minute substitute for the IAC Chair) and I attended the March APTLD Meeting in Bangkok.
  • I have noted the meetings in some detail as two issues arise from them. I have represented the Society at ICANN nine meetings since my first, the LA meeting in 1999, and participated online at another three (Singapore, Berlin, Accra). The work is hard and often frustrating, and I believe that the break in attendance this year has enabled me to return to the work refreshed and therefore better able to objectively assess progress. Secondly, I believe it is time for the Society to reassess the nature of its involvement in the ICANN project. I will expand on both these themes at the end of my report.


  • The Society funded the IAC Chair (in his role as APTLD Senior Vice Chair) to attend the APTLD Board meeting in Kuala Lumpur in September as there was not supposed to be an APTLD meeting at Shanghai. In the event, both a Board meeting and a member's meeting was held on the 26 th of October. APTLD Chair Ramesh Kumar ran the meeting with delegates from nine ccTLDs in attendance (Japan, China, Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Niue, New Zealand and Taiwan). The resulting communique has been circulated.
  • Key Issues:
    2.a. Incorporation
    The vote on where to incorporate APTLD resulted in Malaysia, rather than New Zealand, being chosen. The Chair reported that incorporation has reached the final stages. A small group comprising the Chair, Senior Vice Chair, and three others were to meet to finalise the Constitution and By-Laws whilst in Shanghai. I do not know whether this took place.
    2.b. ICANN Reform
    The ICANN staff maintained their tradition of releasing key documents mere days before the meeting - (see ccTLD section) - the Senior Vice Chair took the meeting through the ones on ICANN reform (22 Oct ccNSO Update; 23 Oct 2 nd Supplemental Implementation report). There was general agreement that the ccNSO Assistance Group's matrix was useful (see section 3. a. of the ccTLD report below). For the first time I heard the Asian APTLD representatives talk about moving outside the ICANN process - an acknowledgement that few are confident that ICANN will meet its obligations under the MOU with the US government.
    2.c. IANA and Zonefile Transfers
    The ongoing issues with the ICANN IANA function were highlighted again with the collapse of a major European nameserver provider (KPNQuest). Instead of the usual attempt to force the signing of contracts in order to make database changes, the ICANN/IANA staff this time attempted to enforce a requirement of ICP-1 (the ICANN staff's unauthorised and unsupported revision of RFC1591) that the entire zonefile be transferred to IANA in order to make the changes [known as AXFR]. ICANN/IANA staff represented this as a method of ensuring the integrity of the Internet by checking that the nameservers for the ccTLD are functioning correctly. This provoked world-wide outrage, especially when the secondary nameservice provider was about to collapse affecting over 60 ccTLDs. The ICANN/IANA staff attempted to justify their action by creating an "IANA FAQ" in September 2002 (see
    Three of the five ccTLD regional groups prepared formal position papers for ICANN demonstrating the absurdity of the action and the alternative ways of achieving the same result. APTLD reached agreement on wording of the APTLD statement on the IANA misuse of zone-transfers as conditions for updating the database and forwarded this to the ccTLD meeting (see section 3.c. of the ccTLD report below)
    2.d. Outreach
    APTLD has been committed to outreach activities since its inception. In the main this has revolved around joint sessions with APNIC around, primarily, the counties of Asia. A significant budget allocation has gone from APTLD to this, along with various of the AP* organisations (APIA, APNG, APNIC, and MINC). Lately this has taken the form of sponsoring attendance by a ccTLD which has not been able to afford to get to ICANN (Vietnam, East Timor, and Afghanistan???? to date).
    The ccTLD community took up this issue and added a budget allocation. The new outreach has set up nameserver training, both globally and regionally. The purpose is to outreach with "education and training so ccTLDs can operate nameservers in an efficient and stable manner and to bring all ccTLDs up to date on current technology and issues related to them both technically and administratively. "
    APTLD ran regional pilot programs in Vietnam and Bangladesh in September funded by APTLD Outreach budget. The global nameserver training co-ordinated by the ccTLDs was held just before the Shanghai APTLD meeting. It served as a formal pilot of the curriculum and format, and was well received. 31 people from 19 ccTLDs attended. APTLD's next training will be in Bangkok in January 2003, and the global in Latin America in March 2003. This program demonstrates the real and potential value in the APTLD and ccTLD for intra-ccTLD development.
    2.e. Internationalised Domain Names (IDN)
    The IDN issue has made progress with the IETF approving publication of four proposed standards (see section 3.i. Internationalised Domain Names (IDN) below). Professor Kilnam Chon (Korea) emphasised that the key point is that while a lot of progress has been made on the purely technical issues in relation to IDNs, the impact will be across a huge range of political and policy issues. Kilnam urged the APTLDs to take action to address these issues promptly by establishing a Working Group. In an attempt to understand which issues fall where before APTLD set up a Working Group, I asked for a paper on the issues from Kilnam. A paper was duly prepared over lunch and a statement adopted.
    2.f. Issues outstanding
    - the meeting agreed that more focus is needed on Pacific outreach. Stafford Guest (.nu) noted that .nu was arranging a Pacific INET meeting in Nov in Fiji. (I was asked if we could supply someone to present on IPv6 - see section 5. Recommendations below). I indicated that .nz remained willing to assist with Pacific outreach.
    - there is a lack of both funding and trainers for the nameserver training outreach. We were all asked if we could assist.
    - IDN implementation - .nz needs some policy (see section 3.i. Internationalised Domain Names (IDN) and section 5. Recommendations below)

3. ccTLD - OCTOBER 27-29 2002

  • Many of the issues raised at the APTLD meeting carried forward to the ccTLD meeting. I will only report where differences occur. 143 representatives of 51 ccTLDs were represented at the meeting. [ccTLD Communique ]
  • Key Issues:
    3.a. ICANN Reform

    This is taking place under the auspices of the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC). The ERG initially produced a "Blueprint for Reform" based on the critique of ICANN written by the current CEO, Dr M Stuart Lynn in February 2002. In keeping with ICANN tradition this was published on June 22 2002, just days before the Bucharest meeting. Both the APTLD and the ccTLDs responded with a strong critique of the Blueprint developed at the Bucharest ccTLD meeting (see ). The Shanghai meeting unanimously re-endorsed this with one abstention (.uk)
    In the days before the Shanghai meeting, more documents were published, namely:
    ERC's First Implementation Report -;
    ERC's First Supplemental Implementation Report -;
    Fourth Status Report on Implementation of Evolution and Reform: RIRs Propose Blueprint - (in response to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs - APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC) Joint Blueprint: )
    ccNSO Assistance Group Update:
    ERC's Second Supplemental Implementation Report -;
    and the ITU passed Resolution 102 at its Plenipotentiary in Marrakesh (which revises the 1998 resolution ( )
    The ERC acted in the typical ICANN manner in avoiding the open and transparent, bottom up process in its consultation with the ccTLD community in relation to reform. Instead of asking the community who it wished appointed to represent it on the ccNSO (the ERC version of the ccSO which the community has been working on for nearly two years) Assistance Group, it approached members of the ccTLD community individually and privately. Some of the ccTLD invitees, namely our AdCom members Patricio Poblete (.cl) and Bernard Turcotte (.ca), immediately notified the community of the invitation and kept the ccTLD AdCom updated through oral reports. The community responded with its dismay to the ERC over process failure again, but the work went ahead, chaired by Chris Disspain (.au).
    The ccTLDs reiterated their dissatisfaction with the process, but noted that this did not imply a criticism of the ccTLD members' work. The ccNSO AG noted that they had divided their work into five areas: scope, policy development process, membership, council, and structure, and were unanimous that scope had to be defined before anything else could be done. This is in line with ccTLD work to date which defines the scope of the ccSO as a "narrowly defined range of global technical issues".
    Two representatives from .nl (Bart Boswinkel and Jaap Akkerhuis) had created a matrix to perform the scope analysis which all found useful ( ).
    The outcomes to date sounded promising, and the AG indicated that the work done previously on the ccSO structure, membership etc would be incorporated. Unfortunately, the attitude of the ERC Chair, Alejandro Pisanty, (for which he was later forced to apologise), left many feeling totally cynical, and also the ludicrously tight timeframe for the AG to complete its work (two-three weeks) upset everyone. In the meantime the ccTLDs have committed to providing feedback on the matrix.
    MOVED ca./.de: The ccTLDs meeting in Shanghai welcomed work which has been done by the Assistance Group and the opportunity for further two way communication that this proposal provides. CARRIED U
    The RIRs were also invited to address the meeting to expand on their proposal (section 3. a, above).
    Moved Cubberly (.ca) / Disspain (.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" CARRIED By Acclamation
    3.b. IANA Proposal
    This led to what I consider to be one of the most significant turning points in the work of the ccTLDs. We were supposed to be addressing the final sign-off on the ccSO establishment, but the previous session, the ongoing lack of progress with the IANA function (see Zonefile transfers (section 3.c. below), the ITU's Resolution 102 (section 3.h. below), the Regional Internet Registries proposal to take over a section of the IANA function (section 3.a., above), and the real progress with the relationships with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC -section 3.f. below), sparked an abrupt change of direction. The community departed from the Agenda to discuss what we would do if the newly extended MOU between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce (DoC) were to fail in Sept 2003.
    Although the feeling of the meeting was most clearly articulated by Dr Willy Black (.uk), he cannot be singled out as a "radical" in this case. Remember that the APTLD, and here I do not mean the two Anglophone countries, had already raised the issue and begun to explore a solution. The meeting determined that it needed to work on a "Plan B" or fall-back solution should the MOU not be extended. Dr Black was delegated to do a draft Terms of Reference and basic position paper on the ccTLDs bidding for the DoC IANA function contract with ICANN (which expires in March 2003).
    Dr Black reported back at the end of day three with a basic approach which was endorsed by the ccTLDs, and tasked with setting up a Working Group to create a paper for consideration by the end of December 2002. This was carried unanimously with four abstentions - the first three of whom are on the ccNSO AG (.au, .ca, .nl, .fr). [Remember that there were 51 ccTLDs represented.]
    3.c. IANA and Zonefile Transfers
    This was covered in the APTLD section (c. IANA and Zonefile Transfers).
    It may be useful to note that there are five regional associations:
    APTLD Asia Pacific Top Level Domains Association
    CENTR Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries
    LACTLD Latin American & Carribean Top Level Domain Organization
    AFTLD African Top Level Domains - relatively newly established
    NATLD North American Top Level Domains - seems inactive at the moment, tends to work with either CENTR or LACTLD (.ca, .ky, .ms, .tc, .tt, .us, .vg, .vi, .pm)
    Three regional papers were presented and endorsed by the ccTLDs.
    MOVED: Steven (?)/Hansen (.no) 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. CARRIED U
    The DNSO arranged a panel session on the AXFR situation. The ccTLD meeting adjourned in order to attend and the general feeling was one of frustration that once again ICANN staff dominated the session and trivialised the issues; no debate allowed. The DNSO did unanimously adopt the (heavily amended) motion from Elisabeth Porteneuve (AFNIC) on the issue, though some remained doubtful about the value of transferring the issue to the Security and Stability Committee to set up a working group.
    The meeting determined to appoint Sabine (.de), Kim (.au), Elisabeth (AFNIC), Oscar (.mx) as delegates (they gave the panel presentations); they are to write up own Mission Statement and circulate; it must have a clear statement that not they have no policy setting authority; must come back to cc's before goes to Board.
    3.d. DNSO withdrawal
    Returning to the Agenda, the issue of "outstanding" payments for the DNSO were discussed. Elisabeth explained that the DNSO applied payments to the latest financial year rather than the period incurred, so even though we withdrew funding after the last financial year, we could be considered to owe money. Many disagreed, but CENTR had decided to make a one-off payment of EURO 4000 for "past involvement". .nz has just contributed a second US $500 payment.
    Sue Leader (.nz) noted that it was time to act on our decision to withdraw from the DNSO, both to put an end to the funding debate and to demonstrate the ccTLD seriousness about reform. Elisabeth noted that the terms of our Names Council representatives ended on Oct 29, so a final decision was needed to either withdraw or elect new representatives.
    Moved Leader (.nz)/ Porteneuve (AFNIC): THAT we announce our decision consistent with points #6 and #9 of the Stockholm Communique to withdraw from the DNSO at the end of the DNSO Names Council Meeting on Oct 29 2002. CARRIED U
    3.e. Transition Issues
    The meeting discussed transition issues while ccSO being established. It was agreed that: the current AdCom members remain in place excepting the former Names Council Representatives; that the Secretariat continue; that we revert to being known as the World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domains in the interim; that we continue to meet at least twice a year at the same time as ICANN meetings are held in order to maintain relationships, especially with the GAC; that we announce that there will be no ccTLD/wwTLD meeting at the recently announced ICANN AGM in Amsterdam in December.
    The term of the current ccTLD Secretariat expires in mid-2003 . The meeting agreed to review Terms of Reference for Secretariat by end of December 30 2002. There may be need to recast ToR in the light of the ccSO structure. Call for bids by Feb 28 2003. Appointment made by March 31 2003 (i.e., before Brazil meeting, but existing Secretariat would run Brazil meeting.)
    3.f. Government Advisory Committee (GAC) relationship
    The meeting discussed the ccTLD-GAC liaison group which was suggested at Bucharest. In the end the problems associated with a GAC liaison person not being able to speak for the GAC, and the fact that both CENTR and APTLD are already holding regional liaison meetings, a preference was expressed that co-ordination of ccTLD-GAC workshops as more beneficial. The outcome was left to the closed ccTLD-GAC session on the 28 th .
    The Agenda for the GAC session was: 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. As the session was closed, details cannot be released, but the meeting was a positive one.
    Our GAC representative, Frank March has reported on the GAC meeting separately. We benefited enormously from his attendance. The GAC Communique reflects the change in relationship (see - )
    3.g. IANA issues with "redelegations" - update
    The ccTLDs continue to be hampered by the IANA/ICANN usage of the word "redelegation" for all updates to the IANA database, a usage which slows the process down. The ccTLDs have therefore changed language to clarify the difference between the acknowledged ccTLD Manager (whether a natural person or an organisation, with .nz falling into the latter category) which requires an administrative update (e.g., change of address, nameserver changes); a mutually agreed change of Manager; and a contested or forced attempt to change Manager. Only in the latter case is the word redelegation to be used, and this is a tiny minority situation. The former two cases will be referred to as Administrative Updates and Agreed Change of Manager.
    Having said that, the following reports came under the Agenda heading of "redelegation" updates.
    - .cd (Congo) - this is an agreed Change of Manager; in summary, IANA has refused to make the update despite letters of support and internal contracts from all parties including the Local Internet Community (LIC) and the government, as no-one will sign the unilateral ICANN contract. At Bucharest IANA/ICANN staff reportedly told them it "doesn't consider you as a partner in the process". This has been going on for nearly two years.
    - .cx (Christmas Island) - again an agreed change of Manager by all parties in .cx. However, as the Island is not completely independent of Australia, and as Australia won't sign off on the change until the .cx parties sign the ICANN contract, the change has not been effected in the IANA database, even though the change actually took place in the real world nearly two years ago.
    - .tk (Tokelau) - again an agreed change of Manager by all parties in .tk; the new Manager started to accept registrations in December 2001, the Admin Contact still in NZ and he is worried about legal issues and has threatened legal action if update doesn't take place; the government of Tokelau doesn't wish to sign the ICANN contract; still waiting for the "redelegation" from IANA. This is at least a year old.
    - .ng (Nigeria) - again an agreed change of Manager, currently the Nigerian Internet Group; the IANA database lists "Nigerian Govt - undecided branch" as sponsoring organisation - determining the branch has been taking some time. Randy Bush is Tech Contact - as soon as Nigerian Govt makes decision will transfer management to technically competent people in Nigeria. The delay is in the sorting out which department.
    - .za (South Africa) - Redelegation - legislation has been passed and are going through the process of redelegation; tensions eased some; LIC is working together.
    - .nz - Administrative Update - two years later change of address details not done, reversion to correct name of the Society is not done (IANA unilaterally changed us to ISOC of New Zealand) as .nz refuses to sign the ICANN contract.
    These are not the only issues out there, but only the ones reported on. We noted that .de (Germany) finally got its Administrative Update (change of address) done just before the meeting - another lengthy process.
    - .af - We also had a brief update from Amanullah Aman from .af (Afghanistan) - see Appendix. Amanullah appealed for assistance with training and software so that they could build up infrastructure. Mark Lepage - from UNDP. Stressed the needs are huge in and out of Kabul. Especially training at all levels; software; want to send staff to Registries for a couple of weeks. Who can assist?
    3.h. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Update
    This was an impromptu panel put together in the light of the passing of Resolution 102 at the ITU Plenipotentiary in Marakesh the previous week (see 3.a). Marylin Cade (ATT), Tony Holmes (BT) and Richard Hill (ITU Staff) spoke. Marilyn drew our attention to the
    The resolution directs the Secretary General" to take a significant role in international discussions and initiatives on the management of Internet domain names and addresses?". The panelists had different points of view on whether the ITU should be involved in Internet governance. ICANN is a private, deregulated approach, the ITU is a governmental regulatory approach. Hill indicated that this is all still in the thinking stage, but he had in mind running workshops with the ccTLDs, and asking countries to submit information on the Admin Contacts of ccTLDs, namely: two basic areas: where Admin Contact is in Country and where is not. Sub category: where not in country - where is OK and agreed, and where is a problem. When in country - what is relationship with govt.
    The next day I suggested to the meeting that since Hill had stressed that the ITU waits for submissions rather than actively seeking information, that all ccTLDs should submit the answers to the questions posed to ensure an accurate picture is presented. The General Manager of CENTR spoke against this as risking giving the ITU a wedge, as the language is that which CENTR uses in redelegation discussions. This issue needs considered discussion at the Council Meeting.
    3.i. Internationalised Domain Names (IDN)
    This covers the same ground as noted in '2. e. Internationalised Domain Names (IDN)' above, and that at the Joint Engineering TaskForce (JET) meeting which took place on the 30 th . The JET meeting covered the material in considerably more depth (see section 4. below).
    Kilnam Chon (kr) in the Chair
    ICANN IDN Committee - Manosubo Katoh (ICANN Board), Vincent Chen (.tw); Jon Klensin (IAB Chair)
    Katoh : ICANN IDN Committee Update
    The Committee has been working for nearly two years and time expires end of week - have asked Board for extension. IETF has issued standards proposals (see APTLD report section 2.e. above). IDN will be a Client-side implementation.
    Issues arise, especially as IETF decision not to accept recommendation to restrict the ASCII character set available.
    Permissible code point issue (C-J-K) - need registration and Administrative 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 on SLD/IDN implementation?
    - Use Interface issues?
    Chen : Impact of IDN Registration Policy by UNICODE variants issue - case study on Chinese Characters - really interesting reading.
    6 8156 characters C-J-K in UNICODE
    UNICODE is character based; local implementation almost language based.
    - check the table on collisions as that's where the problem is. Note very low collision with .tw encoding.
    - If there are not any mechanisms to reduce name confusion:
    • about 18% to 23% of registered names have name conflict problem.
    • case: About 16% to 21%
    • case: About 15% to 20%
    • case: Very few percentage of name conflict by applying mapping table mechanism
    - Example of collisions from
    Internationalisation Status and Directions: IETF, JET, and ICANN - John Klensin
    This is coming in the next couple of months. Chen's table is important - 20% collision and the net is dead. Could tolerate 2%. ccTLDs are the ones in control.
    - RFC release - assume four-six months if full process is followed; one month if people just jump.
    - IETF work is only part of the solution. Up to ICANN and us. This is critical.
    - Klensin stressed: 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. Check the JET Guidelines (see JET Report below).
    - The statement adopted by APTLD (Appendix B_APTLD Resolution on IDN.doc ) was discussed and the relevant sections moved:
    Moved: Chon (.kr)/Hansen (.no)
    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. CARRIED U
    The Meeting then moved onto intra-ccTLD development work
    3.j. DNS Service levels - presentations from Sabine Dolderer (.de) ,
    Chris (.au), and
    Shinta Sato (.jp) see
    Agreement to set up ccTLD SLA Working Group which includes tools, co-location of nameservers, etc. Proposal to cctld-discuss.
    3.k. New Authoritative Name Server (Jaap Akkerhuis) or "everyone knows you shouldn't run Bind 4 anymore" nsd - a nameserver daemon.
    - Why: code diversity ; simplicity; performance; open source
    - What is it? Authoritative-only DNS name server . (no recursion, no caching, no dynamix update, no zone trasnfers); implemented from scratch; hi performance; DNSSec ready; well tested
    nsd-1.0.2 is available and is stable
  • 3.l. Internet Users Society Niue (.nu) - distributed a handout on videos which are being produced by .nu for users in tropical and/or developing areas to keep their computers going. Free for non-commercial users on application.


  • See attached notes of meeting.


  • THAT Council review InternetNZ's ICANN participation - scope, policy, representation . I believe that it is critical that the Society remain actively involved in the ICANN process. I have discussed this with the Domain Name Commissioner. She is presenting a proposal to the November 25 meeting of NZOC to establish a Working Group to undertake such a review. I support the proposal as outlined to me.
  • THAT Council run a Summit on International Issues to obtain feedback from the LIC as early as possible in 2003. InternetNZ has been fortunate to have clear support for our international work which was gained at the 1999 and 2000 Summits. We need an update as much has changed. In particular InternetNZ needs to determine its stance on "Plan B" (the ccTLD-IANA function)
  • THAT Council recommend to NZOC that it immediately document the current status quo UNICODE usage in .nz registrations. In the light of Klensin's repeated warnings, this is essential so that early IDN implementations do not impact .nz prior to the full .nz Policy Review planned by NZOC for early next year. I have discussed this with both the Chair of NZOC and the DNC.
  • THAT InternetNZ bid for ICANN 2004. The ICANN Board has indicated it would view this postively.
  • THAT InternetNZ make input into ccTLD Secretariat ToR review. The previous ToR were created after the ccTLDs had agreed to accept our original offer to host the initial Secretariat in 2000. They are not workable (and not followed) and may need revision in light of the ccSO.
  • THAT InternetNZ determine whether to bid for Secretariat or to support trusted party's bid once the ToR are amended. This will need to be decided by Jan 2003.
  • THAT Council appoint a representative/encourage NZOC to appoint a representative to the new ccTLD Service Level Agreement Working Group. The SLA WG includes tools, co-location of nameservers, etc, in an effort to improve skills and resource sharing across the ccTLD community.
  • THAT Council approve airfare to Fiji and accommodation for Andy Linton to present on IPv6 at Pacific INET. The cost will be $1500 or less.

Sue Leader
Executive Director


Good afternoon,

My name is Amanullah from Ministry of Communication of Afghanistan. I am a TC/IT Technician of V-Sat office which belongs to Ministry of Communication. This is a good chance for me to discuss our problem, also I would like to inform you briefly about the situation of Afghanistan specially communication system.

As you have already seen in the news there was a big war in Afghanistan during last several years and destroyed everything especially communication facilities in Kabul city . Also everybody knows that the war is stopped just one year ago. Now we are trying to reestablish every thing from the beginning. At the moment we have several radio transmission, TV Transmission, digital telephone, Mobile telephone and Internet connection. Most of people are instrested to have Internet connection but unfortunately our own country code (.AF ) is not functional.

We solve our Internet problem by using private V-Sat and server only for the Government, but the local people still don't have any Internet facilities. At the moment they use private V-sat which belongs to a private company and the Ministry. More than 100 users have Internet connections in the Government. The World Bank and the United Nations wants to help us in this regard. I would like to request any help that might be possible. Especially, in terms of training, we will appreciate and welcome that. I would like to add that we don't have security problem any more.

Best regards,

Amanullah Aman

from .AF

© 2001 InternetNZ
Last updated 7 November 2002

Document Actions