ICANN Vancouver Report of Vice President December 2005
WWTLD MEETING
This was held on the Tuesday 29 November 2005. This is a meeting for all cctlds, to discuss issues of interest. It is hoped than in time these meetings will merge with the ccNSO meetings if more ccTLDs join the ccNSO..
It was mainly focused on operational issues, and had a strong .nz presence with myself, the DNC and Dave Baker from .nz present all day, joined by others as time permitted. These issues, while not as exciting as battling the UN for control of the root, are important in maintaining best practice.
CIRA presented on .ca and how it had climbed from 60,000 names in Dec 2000 to 600,000 today - the change mainly coming from allowing registrations directly at the second level. It requires a Canadian presence for both registrars and registrants, and all registrants are eligible to be members of CIRA, with 300,000 opting to do so. However few vote. They have 95 Registrars
I found it interesting that however the majority of Canadians use a ,com over a .ca domain. 61% of Canadian registrations are in .com, 22% in .ca and 17% in other gTLDs. It would be interesting to see comparable data for New Zealanders - I imagine it would need gTLD registries to supply a summary of NZ addresses from their whois.
NASK, who manage .pl, did an excellent presentation showing how a near totally automated IANA or an e-IANA could work using Menu options and PGP authentication. It even allows for the US DOC to login and approve requests directly into the system. This is not an official IANA project but shows the standards we want IANA to achieve.
It would be useful for InternetNZ to independently verify the e-IANA system, so it can use that knowledge as part of its lobbying efforts to improve the performance of IANA.
RECOMMENDATION 1:
That InternetNZ and/or NZRS arrange for a suitably qualified person to audit the system and source code at www.eIANA.org and to report back the results to appropriate groups within InternetNZ and/or NZRS.
A large ICANN Registrar, eNom gave a registrar perspective on ccTLDs. They manage 6 million names over 40 TLDs and have over 12,000 resellers. They strongly support a model (like .nz) where all registrant requests are done through registrars and not directly at the registry. They also prefer minimal restrictions to allow automation as manual components are too labour intensive.
They said a growing number of registrants want registrations in many TLDs, but wish to do this through one registrar. On the market side they like value ccTLDs such as .fm or .tv and allowing registrations at the 2 nd level, plus want ccTLDs to provide marketing tools to registrars. They also prefer EPP as a registration platform.
InternetNZ, through Debbie Monahan and Dave Baker, did a well received presentation on measuring and monitoring registry performance. It was obvious from the presentation and reaction that .nz is more advanced than most of its peers in having detailed performance standards and a service level agreement. We have come a long way from the blank Schedule A of Domainz days J
As many ccTLD managers run both the actual registry and the policy function directly, they do not have explicit performance agreements. It is a real strength of .nz that our structure leads us to having these transparent standards.
Steve Crocker presented on security and stability, and specifically DNSSEC. Dave Baker also attended a more detailed workshop on DNSSEC. Steve Crocker confirmed that Nominet' s fix to the zone walking issue will shortly be accepted, and the policy barrier to considering DNSSEC will be removed. He also said that in early 2006 there will be a dedicated workshop on it in the Northern Hemisphere. InternetNZ and/or NZRS may wish to consider whether it would be worthwhile to have someone attend that.
Even with the fix for the zone walking issue, it is not a foregone conclusion .nz will introduce DNSSEC as we need to have registrars and ultimately registrants wanting to utilize it. However that should be part of a consultation process on the issue.
RECOMMENDATION 2
That InternetNZ and NZRS make appropriate budget provision for consultation to start on DNSSEC in .nz during 2006/07
The new General Manager of IANA addressed the meeting. David Conrad is the founder of APNIC, a former Executive Director of ISC and founder and CTO of DNS specialists Nominum. He is a very well respected player in the field, and incidentally helped bring the Internet to NZ.
He said that most of what IANA does is technically simple, but the time comes from checking policy and procedure compliance. The waitlist of root zone requests pending has reduced from 80 in July to 20 in November.
As they move to more automation of systems, they will want beta testers.
RECOMMENDATION 3
That InternetNZ offer to be a beta tester for any new automated IANA systems
CCNSO
Firstly Bart Boswinkel gave a report on how well the ccPDP process had worked to consider changes to the ccNSO section of the ICANN bylaws.
The members vote was a 64% turnout (50% is the quorum) and all resolutions passed with no dissent and a maximum two abstentions out of 29 votes. There are 46 ccNSO members. The Board will shortly ask for feedback on the proposed changes and it is hoped they will agree to most or all of them well before the Wellington ICANN meeting, which will allow time for further ccTLDs to join up before Wellington.
The latest version of the accountability framework was presented by Hira Hotta and it is getting close to final.
Key recommended aspects of an accountability framework for a ccTLD are:
- generation and maintenance of zone data for the ccTLD
- maintenance of name service for the ccTLD
- adherence to relevant standards such as RFC1591, RFC1034, RFC1035
- maintain a reliable and stable interoperable DNS
- preservation of security and stability of DNS
- accuracy and completeness of information about the ccTLD manager
- financial contribution to ICANN
- possibility of escrow with a trusted third party
For IANA/ICANN recommended aspects are:
- maintain authoritative-root database
- update name server information in a timely manner
- publication of root-zone Whois information
- assuring operation of authoritative root name server system
- maintenance of authoritative records and audit trail
- notification of contact changes
The following possible commitments/obligations from ICANN should also be considered:
- security and stability of DNS
- financial accountability (budgeting process and expense accountability)
- appropriate documentation of procedures for audit trail and for IANA
General terms
- mutual recognition/acknowledgement of ccTLD manager role as registry and of ICANN role
- term of the relationship
- termination
- effect of termination
- dispute resolution/arbitration
- choice of law
- confidentiality- should the terms of a ccTLDs AF be public?
- that AF be between ccTLD manager and ICANN only, with the local Government not being a party
RECOMMENDATION 4
Matters have progressed to such a stage that InternetNZ could now start the process of negotiating an accountability framework. so it is recommended:
That InternetNZ inform ICANN that in principle it is willing to commence negotiation of an accountability framework.
RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Executive Director, Domain Name Commissioner and General Manager NZRS be asked to co-ordinate an InternetNZ accountability framework, noting that approval would be by Council on the recommendation of NZOC.
ANYCAST
A presentation was done on anycasting root servers and TLDs. This helps prevent dDOS attacks and also provides greater geographical availability of name servers.
It was noted that .nz has two of its seven name servers anycasted, and also that two of the root servers have any anycast server in New Zealand - at APE and WIX. There are now over 112 root servers around the world, and over 70% are outside the USA.
STRATEGIC PLAN
The latest strategic plan was discussed, with focus being on key areas of interest to ccTLDs.
BOARD REPORT
PDT presented a report from the Board. Major highlights were:
- New IANA staff
- Much improved stats for IANA
- New CFO
- Improved planning processes
- Board outreach
- Most Board work still gTLD issues
There was also considerable discussion of the Verisign negotiations and proposed dot com contract, with criticism leveled not so much at the outcome (which is a GNSO issue) but the process.
ICANN BUDGET
After years of asking for a breakdown of the ICANN Budget into cost areas related to ccTLDs, ICANN has provided this. The breakdown is not as detailed as I would deem desirable, but it does provide a way forward. ICANN have proposed:
33.3% of security and stability cost of $6.85m = $2.28m
12.5% of policy cost of $4.37m = $0.55m
5.0% of competition of $6.37m = $0.32m
33.3% of stakeholder participation of $5.40m = $1.80m
Total being 21.5% of total cost of $22.99m = $4.95m
The working group on how to apportion this amongst ccTLDs has not yet presented firm models, but some sort of band selection is likely in my opinion. While it is unlikely to have a formal per domain name calculation, it is inevitable that there will be a strong correlation between size of registry and ICANN fee. We have 200,000 .nz names and there are approx 20 mil ccTLD names in total, thus we are around 1% of ccTLD names. If as a starting position we assumed we might end up paying 1% of the proposed ccTLD contributions, then that would be around US$50,000.
I have suggested a more equitable calculation, being:
33.3% of security and stability cost of $6.85m = $2.28m
5.0% of policy cost of $4.37m = $0.22m
5.0% of competition of $6.37m = $0.32m
10.0% of stakeholder participation of $5.40m = $0.54m
Total being 14.6% of total cost of $22.99m = $3.36m
As a result of the discussions, a joint working group will be established to effectively improve communication links and collaboration processes between the GAC and the Board, and relevant ICANN constituencies. The working group will report on its progress at the next ICANN meeting to be held in Wellington, New Zealand, March 2006.
Additionally, the President will appoint a strategy committee by the end of February 2006. The committee will be responsible for making observations and recommendations concerning strategic issues facing ICANN.
RECOMMENDATION 6
That InternetNZ provide a formal submission on the proposed budget calculation for ccTLDs by 31 December 2005
RECOMMENDATION 7
That the NZOC budget for 06/07reflect that InternetNZ "may" agree on an ICANN fee ranging from our current US$10,000 to a possible US$50,000.
CCNSO Secretariat
Our friends at .tw have been appointed as ccNSO Secretariat for 2006-07. Their direct costs will be US$15,000 but there could be indirect costs of travel, publications etc which could increase the total cost to around US$60,000. These will be finalized shortly.
Again it is likely CCNSO members will self-select from a band to cover the Secretariat costs. I estimate that we are most unlikely to have to consider contributing more than US$5,000.
Mega-Registrants
The .au and .ca managers led a discussion on the problems being faced by ccTLD managers who demand a local presence or connection for registrations with companies who register hundreds of domains. They said it is making the enforcement of their polices increasingly difficult.
This reinforced in my mind how glad I am we do not place any restrictions on registration except correct contact information. Over time more and more ccTLDs have moved to our model. Of course one size doesn' t fit all and managers such as .ca and .au have said their local Internet community likes the fact they know they are dealing with a local business when one of their domain names is used.
GAC SESSION
A joint meeting was held with GAC. Main item was discussion of the PDP used on the bylaws. One GAC rep wanted to know when the ccTLDs would commit to paying a proportion of the ICANN budget. I wanted to respond that the ccTLDs would be happy to contribute to match the GAC $ for $ (as GAC pays nothing) but discretion won out for once.
IDNs
Despite extra reasons to show an interest in IDNs, it remains of peripheral interest to INZ, so I did not take notes of this session.
ccNSO Council
- TWNIC was confirmed as the Secretariat
- The Council approved the PDP report on bylaws to go to the Board
- Upcoming Council elections were notified. In Asia-Pacific Young Eum Lee will be stepping down and is seeking re-election. The election will be held before Wellington. INZ needs to decide whom to nominate, if anyone, and whom to vote for if there is more than one nominee.
- Chris Disspain from .au was re-elected Council Chair
Verisign/.com agreement
This was the hottest topic of the meeting, with opposition (for varying reasons) being near universal. The Board did a good job though in meeting constituencies and listening on the issue.
The best summary of the problems in the proposed agreement come from ALAC, which I summarise below:
- separate the lawsuit settlement from the contract renegotiation.
- concerned about the loss of accountability and oversight both of the community over ICANN and of ICANN over Verisign.
- concerned about the use and misuse of personal data.
- the proposed price increases for the .COM registry are inappropriate
- concerned by the lack of economic and legal analysis of the effects of the proposed settlement.
- The proposed settlement makes Verisign the permanent source of the majority of ICANN's revenue.
- Believe very strongly that ICANN should consult with the registrant and At Large community before it fundamentally reshapes its funding mechanism through new contracts with the registries.
- deeply concerned by the lack of transparent process.
- ALAC advises the board to reject the proposed settlement, to seek qualified advice on the economic and legal aspects of any proposed settlement, and to seek a settlement that addresses our concerns.
The full communiqué is at http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02dec05.htm
The Board has asked ICANN staff to continue accepting further written comments until 7 December. Following that, ICANN will produce a public report summarizing, analyzing and organizing the feedback provided on the .com and settlement agreements by 11 December.
The Board has recommend that staff approach VeriSign with the results of the report on the proposed contract and settlement
New gTLDs
Another issue of controversy was the delaying again of the .xxx TLD, despite approval having already been given. This is as a result of (in my opinion very misguided) lobbying from foreign governments and the US Government on the issue.
Somewhat ironically the .xxx promoters have retained Becky Burr, who used to be the senior officer in the US Govt dealing with ICANN, as their representative on this issue. She has been highly effective at highlighting the lack of consistency, but more importantly the fact that GAC had turned down multiple invitations to be briefed on the .xxx TLD proposal and they only got involved after approval had been granted.
It is possible both the .com and the .xxx issue will still be unresolved by the Wellington meeting.
The other news on gTLDs was the approval to start negotiations for the .asia TLD.
AT LARGE
I attended a further meeting of the steering group to create at Asia-Pacific Regional AT Large Organisation. We met several times, as the first meeting represented a huge step backwards.
Previous meetings had decided we wanted to form a RALO, had assigned tasks such as bylaws drafting, and make excellent progress. However at this meeting people relitigated debates about should we even be a RALO, and there was objection to even discussing bylaws. One representative even suggested that bylaws should not be discussed unless there was a representative present from every country in the Region!
Stafford Guest (.nu) who had done most of the work on the bylaws managed to save the day by taking a couple of clauses out and relabelling them operating principles. These were then accepted.
Then the issue of temporary secretariat came up. Emily from .tw had offered at the last meeting to do this, and it had been accepted. An ICANN staffer told the meeting that concerns had been expressed to ICANN that this may be unacceptable to some people and hinder participation. This caused quite an uproar as organizations like APTLD have an excellent history of co-operation where for example .tw was the Secretariat and .cw held the Chair.
I re-iterated our support for the current arrangements but also said that if the concern is over the lack of contestable process for the interim secretariat then possible INZ could provide interim support until a contestable bid process is made for the full secretariat function. This was welcomed, but no decisions made. I stressed I could not commit InternetNZ and also that we were perfectly happy with the current arrangements.
The Asia-Pacific at large effort is at a stage where we should now formally apply to ICANN to be certified as an at-large structure. This is not in our role as the .nz manager but in our wider role as representing NZ Internet users. Many, but not all, of the at large bodies are also ccTLDs.
The criteria to be certified are:
- Commit to supporting individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions.
- Be constituted so that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region in which the ALS is based will predominate in the ALS' operation. The ALS may permit additional participation by others that is compatible with the interests of the individual Internet users within the region.
- Be self-supporting (not rely on ICANN for funding).
- Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership, working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s).
- Assist the RALO in performing its function.
RECOMMENDATION 8
That InternetNZ apply to be recognised as an at-large structure by ICANN, so it can join the Asia-Pacific Regional At Large Organisation which is in the process of forming.
The application form is at http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm
RECOMMENDATION 9
That InternetNZ expresses its full support for the current interim secretariat of the AP RALO, but also offers its services should additional assistance be necessary.
PRESIDENT' S IANA CONSULTATION COMMITTEE
The Board resolved to establish a President's IANA consultation committee to be responsible for giving advice to the president and the board on IANA operations and performance improvement issues.
The ccNSO currently has a IANA working group which has been regularly meeting with IANA to discuss performance targets and issues. I am the Asia-Pacific rep on that working group (which has been doing a very good job under the chair of .ca).
RECOMMENDATION 10
That InternetNZ write to the President of ICANN, signaling a willingness to nominate an appropriate person to the President' s consultation committee, noting we have had significant interactions with IANA over the years, and are already contributing towards providing feedback on IANA, so that it reaches a service level which ccTLDs rate as highly satisfactory.
ICANNZ06
Keith has dealt with many of these issues in his report as that was his major focus. Some brief observations and recommendations from me are:
- The network performance was appalling with there being no Internet connections for almost an entire day one day and patchy for other days
- The welcome packs were quite good with copies of recent IT newspapers/magazines, and also a small card summarizing the schedule for the week
- The upside down map was brilliant
- The t-shirts went down very well, with many people wanting one
- Keith has done an excellent job with the sponsors
- Relations with ICANN staff could be challenging yet Keith was very very firm in his dealings with staff from the very highest down about what our expectations and requirements are
RECOMMENDATIONS 11 to 13
That independent testing of the network wireless availability be done for ICANNZ06. This may be as simple as having several staff just walk from room to room with their laptops.
That InternetNZ approach suitable publications such as Computer World, CIO or even NBR and see if they would like to provide 1,000 copies of their most recent publication for delegate bags
That as well as a main conference booklet (which Vancouver did not provide), we provide a small meeting schedule card for easy use.
ICANN WIKI
An ICANN WIki has been established. Pages have been set up for major issues and for all participants at the meeting. Almost all participants have had a photo taken for the wiki, and from those photos a caricature sketch also done. Colin' s is at http://www.icannwiki.org/index.php/Colin_Jackson
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
I do not intend Council to vote or consider at this meeting, all the recommendations within. I propose they simply be referred to the appropriate Committee, Taskforce, Board or staff member for their consideration.
That the report of David Farrar on the Vancouver ICANN meeting be received and that his recommendations be referred to the appropriate Committees, Taskforces, Board or staff members for their consideration and eventual decision or recommendation back to Council.
