<html>
Hi!<br><br>
In this message:<br><br>
1. ccTLD Communique<br>
2. APTLD Communique<br>
3. ccNSO Assistance Group Coomunique<br>
4. GAC Communique
(<a href="http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/GAC/CommuniqueXIV-Shanghai.pdf" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/GAC/CommuniqueXIV-Shanghai.pdf</a></u></font>)
<br><br>
Erick Iriarte Ahon<br>
Proyecto: LatinoamerICANN<br>
<a href="http://latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar/" eudora="autourl">http://latinoamericann.derecho.org.ar</a><br><br>
-----------------------------------------------<br>
1. ccTLD Communique<br><br>
COMMUNIQUE<br><br>
<br>
of the <br><br>
<br>
ccTLD SUPPORT ORGANISATION<br>
(IN FORMATION)<br><br>
<br>
MEETING IN SHANGHAI<br><br>
<br>
October 29, 2002<br><br>
<br>
INTRODUCTION<br><br>
<br>
144 representatives of 67 country codes met in Shanghai, China on
October<br>
27, 28 and 29, 2002. A list of the country codes which were present
or<br>
appointed proxies is attached. <br><br>
<br>
The country code managers record their appreciation for the work done
by<br>
the members of the local host organising committee, in facilitating
this<br>
meeting.<br><br>
<br>
1. COMPLETION OF WITHDRAWAL FROM DNSO.
<br><br>
<br>
1.1 In Stockholm in June 2001, the ccTLD
community began the process<br>
of withdrawing from the DNSO and forming a Support Organisation to<br>
represent country code interests in ICANN. That process is complete,
with<br>
the withdrawal taking effect at the close of the Names Council
meeting<br>
today.<br><br>
<br><br>
2. FURTHER ASPECTS OF ICANN
REFORM<br><br>
<br>
2.1 Managers re-confirmed the detailed
Response to the ERC Blueprint<br>
which had been produced and delivered in Bucharest in June 2002
(see<br>
<a href="http://www.wwtld.org/documents" eudora="autourl">www.wwtld.org/documents</a>).
It was expected this would provide support for<br>
ccTLD members of the cc Assistance Group in presenting and developing
the<br>
position of the ccTLD community. We noted with dismay that the ERC has
not<br>
yet taken into account what was said in Bucharest.<br><br>
<br>
2.2 Managers agreed that the first output from
the Assistance Group, a<br>
graphical analysis of the functions, responsibilities and
accountabilities<br>
of parties involved in internet registry maintenance, provided a
useful<br>
tool for further work by the Assistance Group in defining the scope of
the<br>
ccSO and accepted the Assistance Group's working methodology.<br><br>
<br>
2.3 In view of the continuing failures by ICANN
in conducting its<br>
stewardship of the IANA function, particularly in relation to ccTLD<br>
database updates, managers agreed to set up a Working Group to develop
a<br>
plan to set up a system of independent management of the DNS root
entries<br>
and database entries. It is expected this plan will be developed in<br>
parallel with attempts to create an acceptable ccSO, and to be
available<br>
in the event that is unsuccessful.<br><br>
<br>
2.4 Managers agreed that while a role for ccTLD
managers in ICANN was<br>
being reviewed, managers would continue to operate as The World
Wide<br>
Alliance of ccTLDs, using the existing Administrative Committee,<br>
secretariat and systems, although henceforth outside the ICANN
bylaws.<br><br>
<br>
2.5 It was agreed that no ccTLD meeting would be organized in
conjunction<br>
with ICANN's proposed meeting in Amsterdam in December.<br><br>
<br>
2.6 Managers wholeheartedly support the Blueprint
for reform of<br>
Internet address management which is proposed by the Regional
Address<br>
Registries.<br><br>
<br><br>
3. INTERNATIONALISED (MULTILINGUAL) DOMAIN
NAMES.<br><br>
<br>
3.1 Presentations were received from the ICANN
IDN Committee (Masanobu<br>
Katoh and Vincent W Chen), and the IETF (John Klensin) on recent<br>
developments with internationalised domain names. Managers expect to
play<br>
a leadership role in the introduction of internationalised domain
names,<br>
and have formed an IDN committee to coordinate ccTLD activity. <br><br>
<br><br>
4. ZONE FILE TRANSFERS<br><br>
<br>
4.1 Detailed presentations were received from
CENTR, LACTLD and APTLD,<br>
which each rejected, on technical and other grounds any proper basis
for<br>
the recent requests by the ICANN staff operating the IANA for transfers
of<br>
zone files as a precondition to them updating the IANA database
transfers.<br><br>
<br>
4.2 Managers endorsed the statements made by the
regional<br>
associations, and called on the board to immediately instruct the
ICANN<br>
staff managing the IANA function to make timely updates in response
to<br>
proper requests, without imposing any conditions.<br><br>
<br>
4.3 Managers appointed 4 delegates [Porteneuve
(.fr), Davies (CENTR),<br>
Dolderer (.de), Robles (.mx)] to the proposed working group involving
the<br>
ICANN staff and the Stability and Security Advisory Committee.
Those<br>
delegates will prepare a mission mandate for on-line approval by
managers,<br>
and their participation will be subject to any output being approved
by<br>
the ccTLD managers, as the delegates have no authority to create
policy<br>
for ccTLDs.<br><br>
<br><br>
5. WORKSHOP WITH THE GAC<br><br>
<br>
5.1 A productive working session was conducted in
Shanghai, during<br>
which there was a useful exchange of views on the IANA function,
ICANN<br>
reform and the possibility of further cooperation.<br><br>
<br>
6. ccTLD NAME SERVER TRAINING<br>
<br>
6.1 Expert volunteers provided training over 2
days in the running of<br>
ccTLD name servers to 32 trainees from 17 ccTLDs. Thanks are due to
Bill<br>
Manning, Yang Woo Ko and Joe Abley for their huge contribution, and to
the<br>
ccTLD Secretariat for organizing this valuable event.<br><br>
<br>
6.2 The next scheduled event is planned to occur
in Brazil in March<br>
2003. Training willb be conducted in Spanish.<br>
<br><br>
<br>
7. REGISTRY PRESENTATIONS<br><br>
<br>
7.1 Excellent presentations on DNS services
provided by their<br>
registries were given by .de, .au, and .jp; and by .nl on a new DNS
server<br>
that has been developed by RIPE NCC and NLNET Labs. Managers noted
the<br>
significant benefit of sharing information of this sort between
managers<br>
at this meeting.<br><br>
<br><br>
8. ITU PRESENTATION<br><br>
<br>
8.1 Richard Hill (ITU) took part in a panel
presentation on Resolution<br>
102. Other participants were Marilyn Cade (ATT) and Tony Holmes
(BT).<br>
ccTLDs were asked for information on their Admin Contacts.<br><br>
<br><br>
9. GRATEFUL THANKS<br>
<br>
9.1 Managers expressed their grateful thanks with
small presentations<br>
to Elisabeth Porteneuve and Oscar Robles on the completion of their<br>
service as Names Council representatives for the former ccTLD<br>
constituency, noting the duration, difficulty and range of services
which<br>
had been demanded of them, and their consistent high level of
performance<br>
and service to the ccTLD community<br><br>
<br>
9.2 Managers also expressed their thanks to Dr
B.K Kim for his service<br>
as Executive Director of the ccTLD Secretariat for the past 18 months,
and<br>
paid tribute to the developments of the secretariat and the work
done<br>
under his leadership.<br><br>
<br><br>
List of ccTLDs Represented:<br><br>
<br>
.ac - Ascension Islands .lt - Lithuania<br>
.af - Afghanistan .ly - Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya<br>
.as - American Samoa .mt - Malta<br>
.at - Austria .mu - Mauritius<br>
.au - Australia .mw - Malawi<br>
.bd - Bangladesh .mx -
Mexico<br>
.be - Belgium .my - Malaysia<br>
.bf - Burkina Faso .na - Namibia<br>
.bi - Burundi .nl - Netherlands<br>
.br - Brazil .no - Norway<br>
.bv - Bouvet Island .nu - Niue<br>
.bz - Belize .nz - New Zealand<br>
.ca - Canada .pe - Peru<br>
.cc - Cocos Islands .ph - Philippines<br>
.cd - Congo, Democratic Republic of .pl -
Poland<br>
.ch - Switzerland .pm - St. Pierre
and Miquelon<br>
.cl - Chile .re - Reunion Island<br>
.cm - Cameroon .ro - Romania<br>
.cn - China .sc - Seychelles<br>
.co - Colombia .se - Sweden<br>
.cx - Christmas Island .sg - Singapore<br>
.cz - Czech Republic .sh - St. Helena<br>
.de - Germany .sj - Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands<br>
.es - Spain .th- Thailand<br>
.fj - Fiji .tk - Tokelau<br>
.fr - France .tv - Tuvalu<br>
.gg - Guernsey .tw - Taiwan<br>
.gr - Greece .uk - United Kingdom<br>
.hk - Hong Kong .us - United States<br>
.io - British Indian Ocean Territory .vi - Virgin
Islands (USA)<br>
.je - Jersey .wf - Wallis and Futuna Islands<br>
.jp - Japan .yt - Mayotte<br>
.kr - Korea, Republic of .za -
South Africa<br>
.li - Liechtenstein <br><br>
---------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>
ASIA PACIFIC TOP LEVEL DOMAIN ASSOCIATION<br>
Shanghai, China<br>
26th October 2002<br><br>
<br>
The APTLD, meeting in Shanghai with members from Japan, China, Singapore,
Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Niue, New Zealand and Taiwan, makes the
following statements:<br><br>
1.<x-tab> </x-tab>We note that the
ccNSO Assistance Group has reported on the progress in developing the
scope of the Supporting Organisation and the approach taken in
determining the nature of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities
might have merit;<br>
2.<x-tab> </x-tab>A statement on
APTLD's position in relation to ICANN's Zone Transfer Policy was adopted
and is attached as Appendix A;<br>
3.<x-tab> </x-tab>A comprehensive
report on outreach in the Asia-Pacific region was received and we noted
that future activities must meet the needs of Pacific members;<br>
4.<x-tab> </x-tab>We resolved to
sponsor attendance by ccTLD managers at further APTLD meetings and made
specific plans for the APTLD AGM scheduled for Taiwan in February
2003;<br>
5.<x-tab> </x-tab>An explicit
resolution on Internationalised Domain Names was passed and is attached
as Appendix B; and<br>
6.<x-tab> </x-tab>We commend the
efforts of the ccTLD Secretariat in organising and conducting ccTLD
Nameserver training for 31 people from approximately 19 ccTLDs.<br><br>
We thank .cn for its efforts in making the necessary arrangements and for
facilitating the holding of the APTLD meeting in Shanghai.<br><br>
<br>
On behalf of the APTLD,<br><br>
Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah<br>
Chair<br>
Asia Pacific Top Level Domains<br><br>
<br><br>
Appendix A<br><br>
APTLD Statement on ICANN Zone Access Policy<br><br>
26 October 2002 <br>
1<x-tab> </x-tab>Introduction<br><br>
ICANN had recently issued an FAQ at
<a href="http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm</a>
regarding the policy to access to TLD Zone Files that was posted in September 2002 ("IANA's FAQ"). After perusing IANA's FAQ, we find that the explanations provided to justify the zone access policy unsatisfactory and we present our arguments in this document. <br><br>
2<x-tab> </x-tab>IANA's FAQ<br><br>
2.1<x-tab> </x-tab>IANA stipulates that access to TLD zone files facilitates diagnosis of DNS problems and helps in analysing DNS performance. We are of the opinion that DNS performance analysis does not require zone file access. There are tools available (such as DNS Expert) that can assist in checking a particular TLD zone. <br><br>
2.2<x-tab> </x-tab>A DNS query, such as dig or nslookup, can check on delegation accuracy and proper configuration. This query can be done quickly. Further, the design of the DNS is in such a way that ensures optimum stability such that parent TLD domains are not affected by the misconfiguration of its delegated sub-domains. <br><br>
2.3<x-tab> </x-tab>We do not agree with the assertion that the basis of IANA's zone access policy is found in RFC1591. RFC1591 does not address zone access at all and instead states the following:-<br><br>
2.4<x-tab> </x-tab>"There must be a primary and a secondary name server that have IP connectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked for operational status and database accuracy by the IR and the IANA."<br><br>
2.5<x-tab> </x-tab>The ground of requiring copies of zone files in order to provide a last-resort backup to help ensure DNS stability in the event of local catastrophic failures is also questionable. The requirement of two name servers addresses the issues of zone data redundancy and network redundancy. This redundancy issue is addressed by, ideally, having geographic and network diverse secondary name servers.<br><br>
2.6<x-tab> </x-tab>Nonetheless, we find IANA's offer of providing last-resort back-up service of interest and would like to seek clarification on whether this is a service that IANA intends to offer, particularly to ccTLDs who face difficulties finding overseas secondary name servers? <br><br>
2.7<x-tab> </x-tab>We completely agree with the importance of ensuring DNS operational stability and performance. It is hoped that clear guidelines on such practices will be formulated in due course based on bottom up and transparent processes. <br><br>
2.8<x-tab> </x-tab>Any decision on methods of name servers checking should be made in consensus with the ccTLD community.<br><br>
3<x-tab> </x-tab>Conclusion<br><br>
We reiterate that the IANA FAQ does not justify its grounds for requiring access to zone files. Technical updates, such as name server changes, submitted to IANA should be acted upon promptly, irrespective of whether IANA has access to a ccTLD's zone files.<br><br>
<br><br>
Appendix B<br><br>
APTLD MEETING AT SHANGHAI OCTOBER 26 2002<br><br>
RESOLUTION ON IDN<br><br>
WHEREAS: <br>
Internationalised Domain Names (IDN) went through the standardisation process at IETF which approved publication of four proposed standards.<br><br>
THEREFORE:<br>
APTLD recognises the need of co-ordination on IDN, in particular in its localisation and global deployment. <br><br>
APTLD specifically recommends that the global Internet community undertakes the following:<br><br>
1.<x-tab> </x-tab>Development of Issues List<br>
2.<x-tab> </x-tab>Development of Recommended Best Practices<br>
3.<x-tab> </x-tab>Creates archives of various resources from around the world<br>
4.<x-tab> </x-tab>Undertake public relations effort, including outreach<br><br>
APTLD further recommends all stakeholders to co-ordinate on this matter, especially the ccTLD community which includes all language communities in the world.<br><br>
<br>
FINALLY:<br>
APTLD specifically recommends:<br><br>
1.<x-tab> </x-tab>THAT the ccTLD Constituency (ccSO) to form IDN Working Groups to address issues for various language groups<br>
2.<x-tab> </x-tab>THAT the global Internet community have regular fora among various stakeholders to co-ordinate activities starting with information exchanges.<br><br>
REFERENCE:<br>
See Appendix for the relevant organisations working on IDN activities and their archive.<br><br>
Signed: APTLD<br><br>
APPENDIX - PARTIAL LIST OF ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED IN IDN<br><br>
IETF/IDN WG<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.ietf.org/" eudora="autourl">www.ietf.org</a><br>
ICANN/IDN Ctte<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">www.icann.org</a><br>
DNSO/IDN WG<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.dnso.org/" eudora="autourl">www.dnso.org</a><br>
APTLD<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.aptld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.aptld.org</a><br>
JET<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><br>
CDNC<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.cdnc.org/" eudora="autourl">www.cdnc.org</a><br>
JPNIC<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.jpnic.org/" eudora="autourl">www.jpnic.org</a><br>
JDNA<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.jdna.jp/" eudora="autourl">www.jdna.jp</a><br>
KRNIC<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.krnic.or.kr/" eudora="autourl">www.krnic.or.kr</a><br>
TWNIC<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.twnic.org.tw/" eudora="autourl">www.twnic.org.tw</a><br>
CNNIC<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.cnnic.org.cn/" eudora="autourl">www.cnnic.org.cn</a><br>
MINC<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.minc.org/" eudora="autourl">www.minc.org</a><br>
AINC<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><a href="http://www.ainc.org/" eudora="autourl">www.ainc.org</a><br><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
3. ccNSO Assistance Group Coomunique<br><br>
ccNSO Assistance Group<br><br>
Communiqué -- Shanghai<br>
29 October 2002<br>
<br><br>
The ccNSO AG has identified five areas on which it will make recommendations (scope, policy development process, membership, council, structure) to the ERC. <br><br>
<br><br>
The AG considered scope to be the primary issue and met with the ccTLD constituency on Monday 28 October 2002 to receive input on its thinking. The AG received general support for its proposed methodology for defining scope and based on this it will solidify its recommendation. <br><br>
<br><br>
The ccNSO AG intends to proceed with preparing recommendations on the remaining four issues in the following manner: <br><br>
<br><br>
1) posting preliminary recommendations on each issue.<br><br>
2) requesting feedback in a timely manner. <br><br>
3) considering feedback in relation to the preliminary recommendation and its effect on other recommendations.<br><br>
4) compiling all recommendations and providing them to the ERC. <br><br>
<br><br>
In completing its work, the ccNSO AG is extremely conscious of ensuring that it provides its recommendations in a prudent, timely and efficient manner.<br><br>
<br>
</html>