Executive Director's Report to Council 31/03/00

I. APTLD MEETING - SEOUL, KOREA FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 2 2000

INTRODUCTION

The Asia Pacific Top Level Domains (APTLD) group is very confusing for the newcomer as it overlaps and intermingles with a variety of other Asia Pacific (AP) Interests and groupings. These are:

AP* - (pronounced AP Star) the combined executive planning group comprising APTLD, APNIC, APNG, and APIA, and APRICOT
APTLD - in theory, the regional grouping of County Code Top Level Domains (ccTLD's) - a subset of the ccTLD Constituency of ICANN.
APNIC - the Asia Pacific Network Information Center - one of three Regional NIC's. Responsible for allocating Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to Registries on payment of a fee. (The international NIC's form the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO) of ICANN, and have three ICANN Board members.)
APNG - the Asia Pacific Networking Group- "Trailblazers for the Advancement of Network Infrastructure in the Asia Pacific" (from their motto)
APIA - the Asia Pacific Internet Association - a predominantly Asian association for Internet professional organisations
APRICOT - Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies - runs an annual Conference/Summit on Internet technical issues.

The APTLD meetings are usually run in conjunction with the ICANN meetings (see my report "Background Issues Paper - ISOCNZ Involvement with ICANN"), but this year the AP* group decided to take advantage of the APRICOT Conference in Korea being close in time to the Cairo ICANN meeting.

SCHEDULE

27 February - AP* Retreat, closed meeting (see http://www.aptld.org/workshop/related_mt.000228.html)
28 February - APTLD Executive Meeting - attended by P O'Brien as current representative - to change to Executive Director as representative with Council approval
28 February - APTLD Workshops
29 February - APTLD Member Meeting (see http://www.aptld.org/workshop/aptld.000229.html)
1-2 March - APRICOT (not attended)

MAIN AGENDA ITEMS:

1. iDNS

The iDNS or International Domain Name System absorbed a considerable amount of time at Seoul. The iDNS enables non-Latin character sets to be used for Domain Names so that, for example, Chinese ideograms or Japanese Kanji can be used instead of the Latinised versions. The iDNS was dealt with extensively at the AP* retreat, the APTLD workshops, the APTLD member meeting, and a BOF (Birds of a Feather).The discussion papers can be found on the APTLD website.

I do not properly understand the mechanics of the competing protocols, but I can seethe need driving introduction of the protocol.I also understand from the events at the series of meetings that there are at least three, and possibly four, competing models, at least some of which are totally incompatible.

I also understand that the IETF has been working on the issue for some time and expects to put out another paper in July. It would seem that the Chinese have developed their own model (called mDNS for Mandarin DNS) and have a huge sign-up already - in the vicinity of 1,000,000 names this year. As far as I can tell this is not interoperable with the existing DNS protocol. If this is true, then it would appear that China is setting up what is undoubtedly the largest intranet in the world. The other main contender apparently has fifteen Asian countries signed up and deals with non-Latin scripts from Hindi and Sanskrit through Thai and Chinese.

All of this was surrounded by conflicting statements (publicly and privately) about who developed what, who allegedly breached Non Disclosure Agreements, who has allegedly stolen Source Code, and who allegedly has reverse engineered the protocol/s. Since there is no way of telling which version/s of events is/are true (if any) at this stage, I RECOMMEND that we tread very cautiously on this issue. I believe that our concern should be twofold:

• To support in principle the development of an internationalised Domain Name System
• To only support an iDNS model which maintains full interoperability with the existing DNS.

2. APTLD conversion to APDN

Apparently New Zealand has agreed in the past with the formalisation of the participation of other constituencies than the ccTLD's in the APTLD. I say "apparently" as P O'Brien worked with E Roberts (".au") to produce the draft By-Laws for an extended organisation to be called the APDN (Asia Pacific Domain Name) This is a mini-ICANN approach in the sense that it echoes the DNSO structure and formalises relations with the Business, Registrar, and Non-Commercial Constituencies. As I had no brief on this issue I took no stance.

The By-Laws Working Group is to have finalised the By-Laws by the end of March, and then the new Executive will bechosen. Current Chair K Chon of Korea has agreed to a transition process to a new Chair before the Yokohama meeting in July should the By-Laws be at all delayed. New Zealand has been approached to stand for the next Chair, and Japan has also indicated an interest. As Japan and New Zealand again worked harmoniously and productively together at this meeting, either outcome would be acceptable.

I am Chair of the Funding Working Group which was tasked in Los Angeles with developing an equitable funding model for the region's share of ICANN funding. The issues addressed included trying to find a way to fairly allocate contributions between registries which work from different models, charge different prices, have different levels of registration, and very different levels of economic development. We also had to take into account the unresolved problems with the ICANN demand for funding which includes no representation for ccTLD's on the Board yet demands over 1/3 of the Budget funding, no input into the Budget development, no contracts with ICANN, and no Service Level Agreements with ICANN regarding Root Server Provision.

I presented the Working Group'sConsensus to the meeting which was endorsed by those present (New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, China, Niue, Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia). I worked with the Vice President of JPNIC (the ".jp" [Japan] delegated manager) Naomasa Maruyama, to create documents to present to ICANN, and Dr Maruyama and I subsequently met with ICANN staff in Cairo to discuss the proposaland await formal feedback from ICANN.

Recommended formal endorsement of this proposal by the Council.

4. "Best Practice Models"

"Best Practice" models have arisen out of the frustrating lack of progress in formalising the relationship between ICANN and the ccTLD's. The first model was drafted about the time of the Los Angeles ICANN meeting by CENTR (Council Of European National Top-Level Domain Registries) - CENTR is the European counterpart of APTLD. The development of a "Best Practice" model is a logical first step in harmonising practices around the 240 ccTLD's.

As CENTR's model did not deal specifically with a Dispute Resolution Process in relation to delegation and re-delegation of ccTLD's, Jim Higgins wrote a first draft for discussion at Los Angeles. I am unclear what happened next as I was not involved in this ccTLD meeting (because of the need to maintain clear role separation due to my work as advisor to the NZ government representative to the GAC).

Both the CENTR model and a model written by Bill Semich of ".nu" (Niue) were presented by Bill at the APTLD meeting. Peter Dengate Thrush had intended to rewrite the Higgin's draft for presentation at Seoul, but when Peter was unable to attend I presented the rough draft on his behalf. I noted that feedback indicated that there were two areas which needed to be included, namely, in the situation where a re-delegation had been decided upon by the ccTLD Tribunal (as proposed in this paper) or ICANN, that there should be both compensation and managed transition provisions.

All three papers were received with, unfortunately, a low degree of interest apart from Australia and Niue, with other APTLD members indicating that they were happy to leave the issue to .nz et al to pursue. The feedback afterwards was simply that their registries were not at the stage where this was the pressing issue for them, and that their current focus was on iDNS issues.

Recommended formal endorsement by the Council of the Higgin's document as a Draft paper.

A subsequent discussion brokered by YJ Park of the APTLD Executive concludedthat in order for each group to both focus on their areas of interest and at the same time support the interests of others in the region, that each group would have the endorsement of the APTLDto pursue their prime interest and each would provide feedback on the other's area to ensure maximum objectivity was maintained on these two crucial issues. One outcome of this is the request for a New Zealand representative to attend the April Beijing workshop on mDNS. The workshop will be in Mandarin, but a translator will be provided should we not have a Mandarin speaker.

Recommended follow-up on the Beijing meeting, and if possible that a representative be sent - it is possible that we have Mandarin speakers amongst the membership.

I received a request from Bill Semich that the NZ paper be merged with his proposal, which I fed back to Peter and Jim by telephone, with the recommendation that the paper remain a stand-alone document until it could be discussed at the Cairo ccTLD meeting (see below)

5. "At Large" Membership for ICANN

a) The APTLD outreach program was described and New Zealand reiterated its desire to be involved especially in the Pacific area. I have not had a chance to assess the quality of the Internet Seminar materials.Just before the ICANN meeting ICANN announced the creation of a web site for registration as an "At Large Member"

The "Internet Seminar Tours" have received some criticism, but I note that they form the only formal outreach program being conducted by any ccTLD region. The presenters come primarily from the Chair's country and involve three organisations - APTLD, APNIC, and APIA. The APTLD has to date paid the airfares for travel, and whichever organisation has people "on the ground" organises the local end (venue, contacts, billeting/accommodation) and takes the lead role in the presentations. In 1999 the Tour visited eleven countries and the 2000 agenda includes: Cambodia (early April), Vietnam (early April), India (Sept), Sri Lanka (Sept), Myanmar, Laos, Manila, Fiji (June), Shanghai (Sept), Indonesia, and Nepal.

Recommended that New Zealand take a role in the Internet Seminar Tours in the Pacific area.

b) "At Large Membership" - teleconference. The whole concept of At Large Members and their role in electing the other nine members of the ICANN Board (replacing the "Interim Board" of nine appointed Board Members which began the ICANN process) is subject to huge debate. The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Common Cause group were brought in by ICANN after the Los Angeles meeting to work through the issues relating to At Large Membership in consultation with the International Internet Community. The consultants proposed an international teleconference call to discuss the issues and invited participation by those who had made submissions and/or comment on the At Large process (see Background Paper for our submission). I was the only New Zealander available to participate when contacted, and after I pointed out that for us the time of the teleconference would be 1:30 AM, the consultants decided to split the calls into regional groupings. The Asia Pacific participants included myself, two from Korea, one from Japan and one other country, plus the three Americans. As the issues had not changed from the time of our submission, or from the directions from the Summit, I participated and re-iterated our concerns about the process as a whole. Afterwards I received an advance copy of the CDT and CC report to the ICANN Board for comment, so was surprised that ICANN chose to set up a registration area for At Large Members a week before they had formally received the report in Cairo (which is critical of the process -see ICANN Report)

6. DNSO Names Council Elections and At Large Membership Elections

A Working Group on elections was set up and I volunteered Jim Higgins to be a member because of his previous work on both issues at an international level.The working group will deal with the following elections:

• ccTLD/Names Counciland APTLD Administration Committee (Spring)
• At Large - Global - Board (May and then August) - 4 members
• ""Regional - Board - 5 members (AP* will recommend candidates for both)
• ASO - Board
• APDN (APTLD) Chair and others by Yokohama at the latest

The Names Council Elections are to determine who represents the ccTLD's on DNSO Names Council. (The last election results were not accepted by ICANN as there were two successful candidates from the same region). The Names Council elects the three DNSO representatives to the ICANN Board. Currently the ccTLD's have no representation on the ICANN Board.

The as-yet-non-existent At Large Membership elects the nine other ICANN Board members - under the current model this is an indirect process via electing an At Large Board who then elect the other nine (under review as of Cairo ICANN Meeting) [Nine Board members are elected by the DNSO, the ASO, and the PSO (three each)]

7. Country Reports

Country reports were presented by all countries present. I have notes for those interested.

8. Workshops

Presentations should be on the APTLD website soon.

• iDNS - reported above
• Registry/Registrar Relations - Clive Flory, .com.au
• ccTLD Registry Services - Tom Newell VP - Network Solutions (NSI)
• Outsourcing ccTLD Services (Domainz Restructuring) - the CEO of Domainz presented the new NZ Registry model. A high degree of interest was shown in the new model by Managers of other Registries and all feedback was exceptionally positive.
• ccTLD Database and Privacy issues (WHOIS) - Takaharu Ui, JPNIC
• Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy - Localisation of ICANN Policy - Toshi Tsubo - JPNIC
• New gTLD's - Naomasa Maruyama - JPNIC
• DNS SEC (secure DNS) - - workshop on DNS SEC in relation to implementation issues to take place at Yokohama

II. ICANN MEETING - CAIRO, EGYPT - MARCH 6 - 10 2000

Five main meetings took place:

• DNSO - ccTLD Constituency - full day - participatory
• DNSO - General Assembly - half day - participatory
• DNSO - Names Council - half day (watch but don't talk)
• ICANN - Public (Open) Forum - full day - participatory
• ICANN Board Meeting (watch but don't talk)

For the 'watch but don't talk' - web-cast and minutes can be found on the ICANN site at: http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm#schedule

I do not propose to get into huge detail here as I understand that Peter will be reporting fully. I will address a couple of areas which impact our work here. In the main the ccTLD and other meetings are a reprise of the APTLD meetings, though possibly with different outcomes/perspectives.

Briefly, the key issues arising from the meetings which the Council and our stakeholders will need to discuss at a Summit are:

ccTLD - key issues:

• iDNS - interoperability with existing DNS
• ICANN relationship - Service Level Agreements, Board Representation, Budget participation
• Best Practice Models - six papers to redraft for consensus before Yokohama
• Funding - what level, by whom, equity issues (relates to ICANN relationship)
• ccTLD Secretariat in New Zealand for 2000

All of these issues relate to the relationship between the ccTLD's and ICANN, a relationship which is only progressing slowly. The key issue is still that ICANN wants $US1.6 million (for year end June 30 2000, and apparently again for 2000-2001) from the ccTLD's without the ccTLD's having any representation on the ICANN Board, with no input into the Budget process, and with no "service" for that contribution.

The funding proposal from the APTLD found support as a similar kind of approach by CENTR last year had yet to bear fruit. One key factor is that ICANN will not provide any kind of "paper", e.g., an Invoice to the ccTLD's, and no responsible Manager will hand over money without such a document. The APTLD approach (referenced above) includes sample documents, requires some kind of surety by ICANN, and only contributes to funding for this current year.

The ICANN staff who attended the morning session (led by VP Louis Touton) were unbelievably confrontational and unhelpful, leaving many feeling that the GAC "recommendations" on ccTLD administration were a "done deal" before the ccTLD had submitted it's own proposals. (The relevance here is that the GAC proposal inserts governments into the middle of the delegation process and governments guarantee that ccTLD's will pay whatever levy ICANN imposes).

The ccTLD looked at the Six "Best Practice" proposals submitted to ICANN (including the GAC paper) and sensibly decided that they could not be reconciled before the Board meeting. As a consequence the AdCom (Administration Committee) was to set up a drafting group to bring the models together, inviting comment from the original drafters.

The ccTLD acknowledged that the workload currently being carried by a volunteer was too large, and that for the various work areas to be completed in time for the July Yokohoma meeting a funded Secretariat was needed. Peter Dengate Thrush volunteered New Zealand to take on this role for the first year if funding to the order of $US45,000 was provided. The offer was accepted and funding commitments were made on the spot. I am to prepare a brief paper outlining the services and budget of such a Secretariat. (I will report on this in a separate paper).

DNSO - both sessions similar focus

• New gTLD's - timing, quantity, registrars, Trade Mark and "Famous Names" issues
• At Large Membership - report of Center for Democracy and Technology and others on flaws in process
• ccTLD Constituency relationships with ICANN

The only comment I'd like to make here is on the gTLD issue, since this is at the core of why ICANN was founded. The issue arose because of there being insufficient "space" in ".com" for all the people who would like to register a name there. The call has been to create new gTLD's to make more space, and there are a variety of issues surrounding how many more names to create, how they are "chartered", and who should run them. High in this discussion is the Trade Mark and so-called "Famous Names" issue. The DNSO set up two working groups nearly nine months ago - one on the creation of gTLD's and one on Trade Marks and "Famous Names". The latter group's report indicated (though there was some objection to the accuracy of their claims) that they had largely sorted out the issues and they want the principles applied to all new gTLD's .The gTLD Working Group reported that they had consensus on the need for new gTLD's <sigh> and rough consensus on the need for an introduction of six-ten names and then an evaluation period before any more names being introduced. Other than that the range of opinion doesn't seem to have changed from the presentation at Los Angeles. This range goes from the creation of five-six new names with clear charters for all, to hundreds with little or no restriction. As this is an area the Society's other delegates have much more familiarity with I will leave the substantive report to them. I'll send you the reports' URLs once they have been posted.

Board Meeting

Focus was on:

• New gTLD's
• At Large Membership
• GAC version of "Best Practice" Model - NZ government endorses, ccTLD's have serious reservations
• Board Minutes are at http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-10mar00.htm

Two comments here - one is on the GAC document, the other on the US-centric viewpoint still being maintained by ICANN.

The GAC document - as noted before this seemed to have been "pre-accepted" by the Board. The ccTLD's have real concerns about areas of the document which place governments as the "third leg of the triangle" in the issue of delegation and re-delegation of ccTLD's. Few of the ccTLD's have problems with their own government per se - the issue is twofold:

• firstly that RFC 1591, the basis of the process, makes it clear that the relationship is between IANA (now ICANN) and the ccTLD Manager. The government only gets involved should IANA/ICANN and the Manager not be able to sort things out.
• secondly, that this document purports to set standards for the whole world. it would be easy for most of us to say "we have no problems", but then most of those attending ICANN meetings come from fairly stable political systems with an enshrined democratic process. This is not true for many of the ccTLD's, so blanket acceptance may put them at risk.
• I would like to speak further to this at the next Council meeting.

Another principle in the formation of ICANN was to recognise the global nature of the Internet and give the international community more input into determining how the technical management of the Internet should move forward. It is my opinion that this aspect is not working out well as nearly every policy decision is still based on a US-Centric view of the world. As an ex-patriot American (and proud CanAmeriKiwi) I feel that this is a reflection of naivete rather than maliciousness, as some would have it, but the outcome remains. As an example, country after country rose to speak after the GAC presentation pointing out that what the US and its allies understand by the word "government" does not translate into other cultures in the same way. They gave telling examples (e.g., in one South American country 'government' means any government official). Their words were simply not heard. I raise this as something to be aware of as I don't see a solution at the moment (and if I find one I'll probably run for President of the US!!)

FINAL COMMENT

The range of issues being debated and decided by the ICANN process are complex and will determine the future of the internet for the next crucial years. New Zealand must remain involved, and if possible a wider range of expertise must be supported to these meetings.

I've tried to "nutshell" the key issues for people new to the issues and I hope this is of some assistance. In the end, wading through the material on the web sites is probably the only way to come to grips with the issues. I'd like to conclude with an observation which struck me forcibly at the ICANN meeting and it's surrounding informal networking. I have never before met so many people who are certain not only thattheir view of the way the world should work is right, but that they will be able to make their view happen. Add to that (in my view) thatthey are all "right", and that all their "rights" are different from each other in most ways, and you will have some idea of the complexity of the process ICANN and the Internet Community is embarked on.

Sue Leader
Executive Director
ISOCNZ

GLOSSARY

End Notes

© 2000 The Internet Society of New Zealand
Last updated 12 April 2000