第16回社団法人JPNIC運営委員会資料2-7

1998/08/18 運営委員会
資料 2-7
国際連携業務に関する報告

ジュネーブ(スイス)でINET'98期間中に開催された会議のうち、国際連携検討部会
副主査(副理事長)および事務局が傍聴・出席したものは以下の通り。

<<ISOC Advisory Council Meeting>>
日時 1998年7月20日 8:30-12:30
場所 Hotel Holiday Inn Crown Plaza Geneva
議事 - organizational member の状況
- ISOC および関連団体の意志決定過程
- 財政状況
- 言論の自由とポルノ規制のバランス など

詳細は参考1を参照のこと。
公式議事録は ISOC より公開の予定。

<<APccTLD Inaugural Meeting>>
日時 1998年7月21日 9:00-12:30, 13:40-16:10
場所 Hotel Holiday Inn Crown Plaza Geneva
議事 - タスクフォース結成
- 名称
- メーリングリスト
- 会員
- 目的
- 事務局 など

詳細は参考2および以下の URL を参照のこと。
http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/inaugural.html
(参考1)
ISOC Advisory Council(AC) Meeting 傍聴記録（大橋 記、丸山 校訂）
-------------------------------------
日時 1998年7月20日(月)
場所 Hotel Holiday Inn Geneva

議事
※時刻 - 上段は予定。下段は実際に議論された時刻
（丸山と大橋は9:20 頃 到着）

議長：Stephano Trumpy(Advisory Council, イタリア)

1. Welcome, Introductions(Chairman) 8:30-8:50

2. Minutes of last AC Officers meeting and 8:50-9:20
matters arising(Chairman)

3. Status of Organizational Members 9:20-9:40
(Don and/or Marty)

<問題>
メンバーをいかに増やして会費収入を確保するか
Sustaining Gold 会員など、会費を沢山出して貰う会員をどう増やすか

<議論>
- JPNICはSustaining-Gold MemberとしてACに席があるにも関らず、この会議に
ついて連絡がなかった。メイルでの連絡に関しては私のミスかも知れないが、
会場にある ISOC secretariat に聞いてもわからなかった。もう少し会員
対応を改善する方法を議論する必要がある(丸山)
--> AC の ML では会議の場所などは連絡した。会場の ISOC
secretariat は、当地(Geneva)の人達に手伝って貰っているので、
わからなかったのだろう(Donald Heath)

4. Decision making in ISOC and related bodies 9:40-10:00
BoT activities and relations with ISOC(Don) 9:45-10:00

<問題>
構成メンバーの意見をいかに反映しコンセンサスを得るか
適切な意思決定プロセスはどのようなものか

<結論>
MLを活発化させる
- MLに載せる議題を予め選ぶ(議題数は制限する)
- 特定の議題に関心ある専門家を指名し、参加させる
- 実際にMLが運用可能かISOC事務局担当者が調査する必要ある

<議論>
- そもそも ISOC は誰を会員とすべきで、どのような人達の意見を聞くべきな
のか？一般のインターネットユーザなのか、技術者なのか？
→ 過去にその議論はされていて、技術者が対象、ということに一応
なった（と言っても、それで出席者全員が納得しているようには
思えなかったが）
- AC 構成メンバーの指名方法は
Nominating Committeeによる指名
さまざまな利益代表がインターネットコミュニティに存在
→選定、指名は容易でない
- Advisory Council MLをさらに活発化し、メンバーの意見を取り入れるべき
- 一般向けの MLの活用：
2つの MLが可能：頻度が少なく内容も多くないアナウンス用ML
議論を行うためのML
- MLでは議題が多くなりすぎないよう、議題の数を決めて運用すべき
- JPNICのML運用経験(domain-talk を念頭に)
ある案に対し、賛成者は発言しないが反対者のみ意見を出す傾向がある
moderatorは表明された反対意見に影響され、大部分が賛成(沈黙しているが)
する意見を取り下げる危険ある（丸山）

5. New funding moel and marketing thrusts for 10:00-10:30
ISOC(Christine+Christiane) 10:00-10:40
※手書きOHP等を使用したプレゼンテーションがあり、時間かかった
<問題>
- 資金回収を改善するための方法を検討する
<結論>
- ML等でさらに議論する必要

<議論>
- Associate level membership を設置し、そのメンバーの協力による
一般メンバーへの商品ディスカウント(ISOC Webにカタログ掲載)できるか。
可能であれば入会 (＝ISOC資金源確保)のインセンティブになる
- ISOCメンバーからAssociate level membershipを取り入れる方法は？
- ISOC 発行の雑誌(印刷)はコスト過多。これまでの印刷版に加え、html, PDF版
など新たな提供方法を検討する必要

6. ISOC position on the US Government White 10:30-11:00
Paper(5 June 1998), "new IANA"(Don) 10:40-11:00
<現状の概観>
- 新法人 ドメイン名、IPアドレス、インターネットプロトコル、産業／ユーザ
の代表を参加させ、コンセンサス形成
- IFWP(International Forum on White Paper)の紹介

<結論>
7月24日、25日に当地にて議論の予定
8月12日、13日にシンガポールで会議の予定

7. Balancing freedom of speech with protection 11:00-11:30
of minors from pornography(Mike) 11:00-11:50

<問題>
- ポルノからユーザを守るためにどうすべきか

<結論>
- さらに議論を継続する

<議論>
- ISOCとしてはISP やエンドユーザ向けに何らかのインストラクション
できるかもしれない
- 言論の自由は重要な問題であって、例えポルノ映像であっても安易に検閲を
許すべきではない
- 各国で関連する法律や文化が異なり、一概に規制することは困難
- ポルノに関しては各国の事情が異なっているが、幼児ポルノに関しては各国とも
否定的であって、これに関してはコンセンサスが得られると思う
- この問題は技術的のみならず、法律、文化、政治側面を含み、即座に解決は
不可能

8. Organizing elections for new officers 11:30-12:00
(Chairman+Don) 11:50-12:10
<問題>
- AC Officerの選出方針

<結論>
- さらに議論を継続する

<議論>
- ACメンバーの増加に伴い、AC Officerの人数を5名から増やしても良い
- 議論が多様な分野に及ぶため、Officerは広範囲の利害を代表できなければならない

9. Other business and adjourn(Chairman) 12:00-12:30
時間の都合で割愛

-----------------
Notes:

出席者は30名強。主な氏名は以下の通り(敬称略)：
Scott Bradner, Martin Burack, Donald Heath, Geoff Huston,Christine Maxwell,
石田晴久、村井純、高橋 徹、山口 英、Adam Peake, Jon Postel, Robert Shaw,
Stephano Trumpy 他

特に注意を集めていたのは AC運営方法とISOCメンバーからのインプット
(意見と資金)を増やす方法についての議論であった。

ACにおける議論については、その構成員の積極的参加を促す必要性を確認した。
しかし構成については、幅広い利害代表を公平に取り込むことの困難も認識して
いた。

メンバーの意見はISOCの意思決定に直結する。ISOCはインターネットに利害関係を
持つさまざまな分野からの意見を吸い上げ、公平なインターネットコミュニティ運営
を行いたいとしている。しかしインターネットが技術的分野のみならず、法律、経済、
文化、倫理など多方面に関わっている現在、ISOCはそれら全ての利害を公平に反映
する具体的な意思決定システムをいまだ確立できていない。
また、ISOCの会計事情は良好でない。従っていかにメンバーからの資金を得るかが
大きな問題であった。そのため今回会員向け提供メーカ商品ディスカウント
が提案された。

(以上)
(参考2)
The following are combination of notes of the
July 21 APccTLD meeting taken by Yumi Ohashi (JPNIC) and Adam Peake (Glocom).

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE
APccTLD Inaugural Meeting
Morning and Afternoon Session and Taskforce Meeting

Yumi Ohashi (JPNIC),
Adam Peake (GLOCOM), ,
August 7, 1998.

APccTLD meeting, MORNING Session, July 21, 1998
Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Geneva

1. Greetings from Interim Chairman

Mr. Takahashi chaired the meeting.

Background: At the APRICOT meeting in Manila, Feb. 18th, a BoF meeting
was held to discuss gTLD issues. During that meeting it was suggested
that people involved with the administration of ccTLDs in the Asia
Pacific region should get together to discuss issues of mutual
interest.

The purpose of the APccTLD meeting is to establish a voice for AP
regions' ccTLDs, and to participate in the processes of forming the new
IANA.

2. Confirmation of Today's Speakers (AGENDA)

AGENDA

1. Greetings from Interim Chairman
2. Confirmation of Today's Speakers (AGENDA)
3. Official name of "APccTLD" Forum
4. Definition of AP Region
5. Comments from POC
6. Comments from ITU
7. Comments from IANA
8. Report on RIPE CENTR
9. Report on JPNIC
10. Report on Domainz
11. Report on Canada .ca
12. Introduction of Handout
13. Procedure of APccTLD Forum

Agenda items developed during the course of the meeting and reflect the
events and speakers who participated in the meeting.

When the secretariat is established, Power Point materials from the
meeting will be available on-line at

3. Name for the "APccTLD" Forum

The first issue is to name the organization. The interim working name
for the group is "APccTLD", so far there are no alternatives.

Discussion on this matter will continue on APccTLD mailing lists
(apcctld-discussion@apng.org and apcctld-announce@apng.org) and at IFWP
Meeting in Singapore (August 11 - 13, 1998)

4. Definition of AP Region

We must identify what geographically constitutes "AP". APNIC and RIPE
NCC have identified their respective regions for IP addressing issues.
It was generally agreed by the meeting that APccTLD should follow
APNIC's definition of the countries that form the AP region.

A full list of these countries would be obtained from APNIC.

5. Comments from POC

David Maher, Chair of POC.

The Policy Oversight Committee (POC) evolved from the IAHC and gTLD-MOU
process which began over 2 years ago as an attempt to expand the
generic domain name space. The IAHC, which was formed by IANA and ISOC
in September 1996, produced the gTLD-MoU in February 1997 and signed in
May 1997 to carry out programs to expand Domain Name System. The POC
is the policy oversight body designed for these programs.

In the summer of 1997, the US Government intervened with a consultative
process that culminated in the White Paper on Management of Internet
Names and Addresses. Mr. Maher expressed the view that while the USG's
intervention may have put the Internet community back to where it was
some two years ago, the bright side of this situation is that the final
decision reached during the processes that are following on from the
White Paper will at least have the USG's blessing. The POC is
cooperating with the processes of the White Paper in forming the new
IANA. Mr. Maher hoped that the new IANA will have substantial
representation from the AP region, and probably not a majority of
members from the US.

POC's positions on the formation of the new IANA are available in "an
open letter to the IANA" available on the POC web site
, and a soon to be released document on the
economics of multiple competing registrars.

6. Comments from ITU

Bob Shaw, ITU. Research on Domains.

Mr. Shaw's department had surveyed 220+ ccTLD administrators,
contacting people by email, phone, fax and even telex, to try and
identify who is the correct contact point for each ccTLD and record
their address details. Current records of ccTLD administrative
contacts are woefully out of date, and it is important that accurate
records of who is the primary contact for ccTLDs is maintained.

The data collected has been sent to the IANA, and is currently
available from as a database of
"Internet ISO 3166-Based Top Level Domains". This resource will be
linked from the APccTLD web site

7. Comments from IANA, Jon Postel

Dr. Postel remarked that he had been trying to encourage regional
groups of people who manage ccTLDs express their views and was pleased
to see this group getting together.

New IANA organization
IANA has been supported by grants from US Government contracts, this is
not appropriate any longer and it is time to reorganize the functions
and support of IANA. The Internet community is looking to form
probably a not-for-profit corporation, with an interim board of
directors who will hire staff and create committees for address
management, protocol management in conjunction with the IETF and
industry groups, and the management of domain names. These committees
or "Councils" should be representative of all stakeholders in the
Internet.

Dr. Postel has issued various memos which culminated in last weeks
draft by-laws (see URL ) IANA has produced these
documents to provide information and stimulate discussion. Comments
can be made to the IANA-disucuss mailing list and all information is
available on IANA's web site: draft documents, mailing list archives
and information on how to subscribe to the lists, links to other
relevant papers discussing the issues.

ccTLD groups should participate in the names council to ensure those
running the gTLDs do not ride rough-shod over the concerns of ccTLDs.

Question and Answer session with Dr. Postel:

Q: What is the future relationship likely to be between IANA and US
Government?
A: Conditions are laid out in the USG White Paper.
- Go out and build consensus
- Put the organization together
- Go cap in hand to Ira
- Ira gets to look it over and delegate whatever authority they
think they have over these issues.

Q: What are the timelines?
A: 2 months, because the contracts are ending.

Q: Has the US Government agreed that IANA reincorporate itself? Or any
competing element?
A: Not aware of competing elements.

Q: What happens to domain delegation, when nIANA is established?
A: No major change will be caused. Hope the new board selects existing
staff and continue existing procedures. Gradually and over time,
move to more formal relationships - signed contracts.

Q: How will the Names Council be put together?
A: Names council needs a charter. APccTLD, RIPE center, CORE,
InterNIC, TM folks all should be involved. How to get them
together is real tricky. An opportunity here on Friday and
Saturday and in Singapore.

Q: How about members (Erica)
A: Membership is a very interesting question.
The Supporting Organizations.

Q: More details on transition board?
A: Getting started is difficult. It is also difficult to conduct
wide-ranging process. It should be international, representing all
interests.

Q: What is the role of the board re: IP addresses and names?
A: Oversees the activities of the councils. Make sure that processes
are correct.

Q: How is accountability of the board? Whom it is accountable to?
A: Membership of the new organization.

Q: Governments have interest in affecting the planning of ccTLD. What
presence do they have within the organization?
A: Proposal for a committee of governments to provide more direct
input to the board. Whether it has membership status is a
separate question.

Q: Will governments have some form of membership in the new
organization?
A: Possibly. But that needs balancing. There are also people thinking
government should not have anything to do with this.

Q: Who is going to work on the Council representing industry and user?
A: Not much is done about that. But I suppose we should identify some
association of industries or users to take the role of supporting
the organization in that area.

Q: How can the number of directors from a given country be limited?
A: His current proposal is to limit on the basis of regions:
no more than half from any one region.

8. Report on RIPE CENTR

Fay Howard, RIPE CENTR Project Manager

RIPE CENTR, the Coordination of European National TLD Registries, was
formed from a RIPE working group and first met in the Autumn of 1997,
and held its first formal meeting in March 1998. CENTR has now held 3
plenary meetings and one taskforce meeting. Currently 36 countries
have joined and the project has a cash fund of 120,000 ECU. CENTR is
not directly associated with RIPE NCC, both come under the umbrella of
the RIPE meetings and conferences. A taskforce has been setup to
examine how to establish RIPE CENTR as a separate legal entity and will
report back to the plenary session with its proposals.

Purpose is liaison with key bodies involved in the Internet: with the
US Government over the White Paper, with the IANA, APccTLD, etc.

CENTR will produce documentation on best practices, particularly to
support emerging registries, and a technical workshop for registries
has already been held. A workshop on managerial issues will be held
soon.

CENTR is developing a view of governance issues, submitted comments to
the USG's Green Paper, and will participate in the formation of the new
IANA.

Ms. Howard said there is some concern among the membership over funding
levels: how members should pay, what are the appropriate funding level
(membership fees) should be. CENTR group members recognized that when
the USG ended funding for the IANA those involved in IP allocation and
ccTLD registries would have to pay something for the services they
received. However, ccTLD registries operate under local jurisdiction
and receive quite limited services from the IANA --maintenance of their
TLD in the root server-- , but do realize they will have to pay
something towards the new IANA.

See an important liaison role for CENTR.
To provide a common view on the incorporation of the new board.
Provide a locus for technical collaboration between registries.
To ensure that the ccTLD voice is heard as clearly as that of those
concerned with gTLD issues.

CENTR has been talking with Canadian domain name administrators, but
has had no contact with South America. CENTR is careful to say that it
focuses on Europe but is not exclusively for European ccTLD registries.

Daniel Karrenberg, of RIPE NCC, explain the relationship between the
various organizations under the RIPE banner. RIPE NCC is responsible
for IP addresses and protocol issues, RIPE CENTR is becoming
responsible for issue relating to ccTLDs.

Question and Answer session with Ms. Howard:

Q: Contact with the American registries?
A: Talking to Canada, very little contact with South America.

Q: Issue as to whether for-profit ccTLDs can be a member of RIPE CENTR.
A: A good question. Some not-for-profit orgs *cannot* be a member of
an organization that has "for profit" members.

Q: Geographical restrictions on membership. Does it make sense?
A: Most RIPE CENTR members are happy to allow anyone to join.
One or two don't feel that way. Currently under discussion.

Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE NCC noted on the white board:

RIPE == APRICOT (or APNG)
RIPE NCC == APNIC
RIPE CENTR == APccTLD

Notice from Chairman
As most at the meeting will know, David Conrad resigned as Director
General of APNIC. A new DG has been selected and appointed, and the
name of this person will hopefully be announced this week or early next
week. The new DG will start on August 3. The Chairman thanked Mr.
Conrad for his very important contribution to APNIC and the region.

9. Report on JPNIC

Naomasa Maruyama, JPNIC Vice President, Overview of JPNIC and
experience establishing registry policies.

Mr. Maruyama had prepared 2 papers which he summarized for the meeting.

JPNIC is a non-profit organization, it was founded as a union of
Internet service providers in Japan in April of 1993 and registered as
a pro-bono association on March 31, 1997.

JPNIC operates an open decision making process, with a board of
trustees, a number of advisory committees and mechanisms for hearing
opinions from the public.

Policy is to operate on a non-profit basis, supported by ISPs, as a
common infrastructure for the Japan domain space. JPNIC stresses that
it does not make any commitment to connectivity and routing as these
are the responsibilities of the commercial entities which make up its
membership.

Basic principles for domain name allocation:
Allocation on a first-come first served basis; 1 domain name per
entity; names are not transferable; registration requires local
presence in Japan.

JPNIC received no government funds and began charging for assignments
in June 1995, so was the first registry to operate on a commercial
basis.

Mr. Maruyama had prepared a second paper "Internet governance and the
importance of bottom up coordination."

Role of the country NIC:

* Ensure the uniform coordination of registration policies in a
country.
* Establish domain name assignment and dispute policies.
* Maintain positive relations with the country's government.
* Establish procedures for interaction with police and courts, the
country NIC is often regarded as a central organization in the Internet
in that country, and is an important point of contact for other
organizations.
* Ensure that the Whois database is up to date to ensure fairness and
transparency in the registration of names. But the NIC must also be
conscious of privacy issues regarding information held about
individuals and organizations.
* Security, coordinate and support local, regional and international
CERT activities.
* IP address and number resource assignment.
* Maintain relations with IX and telecommunications industries.

The two papers Mr. Maruyama wrote for this session will be available
online at once the secretariat is
established.

Question and Answer session with Mr. Maruyama:

Q: Measures against spamming?
A: JPNIC's open database contains information of the person responsible
for the domain name.

Q: How can foreign company operating in Japan satisfy the condition
"local presence in Japan" that is required upon applying
for .jp?
A: In Japan, foreign companies should register as "Foreign Company"
The registration satisfies the condition.

Q: How to establish domain name registration policy?
A: Have open, general discussion mailing list.

Q: Any provision in order to become a JPNIC member?
A: None. But up to now almost all of them are ISP's.

Q: Any relationship between .jp domain names and trademarks?
A: Currently JPNIC does not commit to trademark issues. So no
relation between .jp and trademarks.

10. Report on Domainz, New Zealand,

Patrick O'Brien, Chief Executive, Domainz

The New Zealand domain registry system offers a contrasting model to
that presented by JPNIC.

Domain names in New Zealand are registered by a company called
"Domainz". Domainz is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Internet
Society of New Zealand, an incorporated not-for-profit society owned by
its members, that has been delegated to manage the .NZ domain. Anyone
can join ISOC NZ.

New Zealand is 3rd largest name space in Asia Pacific, but
traditionally New Zealand looks to the US and UK for it's legal and
business models, so it will be interesting to see if New Zealand's
concerns over the DNS are similar to those of other AP region countries
or to those of the US and UK. New Zealand is 2nd ranked in domains per
capita, so again, perhaps New Zealand's interests will be closer to
those of other high penetration countries such the Scandinavian
nations.

Background: Like most country code domains, .NZ administration has its
roots in the academic community. About 3 years ago, ISOC NZ
incorporated as a society with the aim of fostering the development of
the Internet in New Zealand. In February 1996, ISOC NZ took on DNS
administration from Waikato University. July 1996, a university began
charging ISOC NZ for running the various DNS servers it used and so it
became necessary to consider means of passing on those charges to the
users of DNS services. Domainz was formed and a system for charging
for the registration and maintenance of the DNS was established.

The registry/registrar model is strong in New Zealand with over 95% of
registrations being made through agents. The transition from the
university model to Domainz was marked by a move to a customer service
based approach. Domainz regularly publishes a range of performance
statistics with the intention of being accountable to its customers.
Domain name registrations that might have taken weeks when operated by
the university are now usually completed within the same business day.
In May 1998, 100% of registrations were completed the same day.

Domainz operates as a company, it has a business plan and aims to
provided an adequate return on investment: operating as a not-for-
profit does not mean operating at a loss. New Zealand is very price
conscious, geographically remote and these factors have helped to
create an innovative culture. Domainz is a small operation, 7 staff,
so even as a non-profit is must be cash driven. Domainz operates on a
strong service delivery ethic.

Key lessons for the operation of a domain registry:

* Need for seed capital funding for operations and capital for the
initial period of operation. The organization should be formed to be
self-sustaining, seed capital is important so that the organization can
make decisions based on sound business practices rather than the need
for immediate cash flow. Decision made at the beginning may create
problems in the future.

* Obtain a contract to operate the ccTLD. Important to agents and
customers that the registry has a firm contract with the new IANA.

* Vision, where does the registry want to be in 2 or 3 years in terms
of customer services, performance, etc.

* Key personnel, people will leave, don't let them be indispensable to
your business.

* Policies that add value (if it does not add value, it shouldn't be
there.)

* Make a business plan.

* YR2000, ensure systems and processes are compliant.

Question and Answer session with Mr. O'Brien:

Q: How do you deal with bad debt?
A: 1. Send invoice
2. Next month send a statement saying that you owe money.
3. Try email & fax, in that order.
70% respond to email. The overall process takes 2 months and
is geared to encouraging payment before the ultimate action, to
cut the customer off, is taken.

Q: Fee collection seems to be a heavy cost on the registry.
A: 2 years ago the registry needed money up-front to start
operations. 40% of name holders were willing to pay up-front and
that gave the cash flow necessary to operate. However, this may
have been the wrong option as there is a lot of dead money in debt
collection. Seed capital may have been a better solution. The
registry is re-examining this policy.

11. Report on Canada .ca, Paul Pierlot, Industry Canada.

Mr. Pierlot commented that he is not directly involved with the .CA
domain, but Industry Canada, a government department, has been involved
in the transition of the .CA domain from a volunteer based system to
new non-profit/cost recovery membership organization. The new
organization will operate in a very similar manner to the New Zealand
registry, it has been formed by the Canadian Internet Society and other
organizations, and will work on a agency registrar model with a central
registry. The Canadian Government has a non-voting seat on the board,
membership will be comprised of all .CA domain name holders. The model
produced does not include any seed capital for the organization, that
may be a concern in light of New Zealand's comments.

12. Introduction of Handout

Adam Peake, GLOCOM, Survey on AP Region ccTLD registration policies.

The survey began life at a BoF meeting held during INET97 in Kuala
Lumpur. The survey asked basic questions about the formation and
operation of APccTLD registries. 11 AP region registries have complete
the survey and the data can be found on the web at URL

The survey data is for information only: definitive information should
be obtained from the appropriate registry/national NIC, this is
particularly important where policies are in languages other than
English and the survey data is provided as an unofficial translation.

Suggested improvements to the survey questions, and contributions from
AP Region NICs/Registries that were missed during the first round of
questions are welcomed.

13. Procedure of APccTLD Forum

Suggestion from the Chairman, Mr. Takahashi

* To form advisory board
* To define role and function of APccTLD forum
* To nominate chairman

After strong comments from the audience it was agreed that these issues
must be fully discussed and it was agreed to continue the meeting
during the afternoon. The purpose of the afternoon session would be to
discuss the formation of some organization to represent APccTLD issues.

------LUNCH------

AP cc TLD meeting, AFTERNOON Session, July 21, 1998
Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Geneva

Toru Takahashi, Interim Chair.

PLENARY

The purpose of the afternoon session is to discuss the formation of the
APccTLD organization and what the functions of that organization should
be.

Introduction:
Professor Kilnam Chon explained that the idea for AP regional
registries to form some representative organization came from
conversations he had with Jon Postel of IANA in late 1997. IANA wants
some central contact point for ccTLD administrators, and ccTLD
administrators themselves have an interest in presenting a collective
voice when the IANA is reformed following the White Paper. After some
discussion online and at the APRICOT meeting in Manila, a mailing list
and temporary web page was set up by Dr. Tan Tin Wee.

General discussion

Membership: The first point raised was if a ccTLD organization was to
be formed, then who should constitute it's membership. The meeting
agreed that membership should be AP region ccTLD administrative
contacts and agreed to the following statement:

That voting membership is limited to the ccTLD
administrative representative or his/her designated
representative. One vote per ccTLD.

It was noted that this meant that some individuals might be represent
more than one ccTLD.

Fay Howard of RIPE CENTR commented that CENTR found the best way to
move forward with identifying organizational and functional issues, and
issues the organization should be concerned with, was to create a
separate small taskforce. The taskforce would meet on- and/or offline
to discuss general proposals identified by the plenary session, and
report back to the plenary with its findings. Ms. Howard also
mentioned that CENTR asked its members for seed funding, to be paid on
a volunteer basis on a sliding scale from $1000 to $7000 maximum.

9 members of the meeting volunteered to form the Taskforce and a 10th
representative joined the group later. The taskforce was comprised of
AP region ccTLD representatives present at the meeting:

KR Kilnam Chon
JP Toru Takahashi
AU Clive Flory
NU Bill Semich
HK Che-Hoo Cheng
TW Kuo-Wei Wu
SG Agnes Lee
NZ Patrick O'Brien
CN Hualin Qian
Secretary Tan Tin Wee (at least until Singapore meeting)

The meeting created a list of discussion points they wanted the
taskforce to discuss.

Taskforce discussion points:

1. Chairman of the new organization
2. Establish new email lists and information resources
3. Funding and budgeting
4. Membership
5. Locations
6. Company form/structure
7. Aims
8. Secretariat
9. Liaison issues (relations with other organizations: APNIC,
RIPE CENTR, etc.)
10. Board structure
11. Legal structure of member organizations
12. Initial projects
13. Prioritize tasks and provide key dates
14. Name the organizations

The taskforce would discuss these issues and prepare proposals for the
next plenary session to be held in Singapore, August 11. It was
recognized that time was short and the taskforce could not be expected
to make detailed proposals on all the issues listed before the
Singapore meeting.

Dr. Tan Tin Wee would continue to act as Secretariat at least until the
next meeting. Dr. Tan would create 2 mailing lists:

apcctld-taskforce@apng.org
apcctld-discussion@apng.org

3 days before the Plenary session (August 8) the taskforce should post
their proposals to the discussion mailing list.

JPNIC offered their services as the organization's secretariat for an
initial period of one year. The meeting thanked JPNIC for this
generous offer, however it was felt that this was an issue that the
taskforce should discuss before any firm decision was made.

At this point the taskforce began its discussion. Some plenary meeting
members remained, but took no further part in discussion.

TASKFORCE

Notes of discussion among Task Force Members

The discussion point list created during the plenary session was
clarified during taskforce meeting. The taskforce began by
prioritizing the items and a modified list with some initial proposals
noted was created as follows.

15 items were suggested, and categorized as:
(A): urgent (B): less urgent (C): can be decided later
Due to limitation in time, all (A)s and one of (B)s were discussed.

(A) Chairman:
Kilnam Chon/Toru Takahashi (transition at Singapore meeting)

(A) Mailing Lists/Website:
be kept by Secretariat
until Singapore meeting - under APNG site
after Singapore meeting - new secretariat will create
the lists under the organization's new name

(A) Seed Funding:
$50,000 (until next APRICOT and INET, depending on the cost)

(A) Membership:
Voting Member
Associate Member
Liaison Member (exchange)
Affiliation(one way from them to us)

(A) Aims:
Internet self governance
Skill(maintaining stability and continuity)
Harmonization
guidelines - good practice or bad practice
e.g. US domain name practice
Dispute resolution

(A) Time Schedule/Time Frame:
(Mailing list management and local arrangement will be done by
Singapore Secretariat)

- August 8 Deadline(agenda, draft documents)
- August 11
- 3:30 pm - 6:30 pm Open Plenary Meeting(make rough consensus)

- 8:00 pm - 9:30 pm Inauguration Meeting
or of ccTLD administrative contacts
morning of August 12

- August 12 Presentation at IFWP Meeting

(A) Name:
Decided in Singapore Meeting straw vote:

Council of Asia Pacific Registries (CAPR) - 2
APccTLD - ?
APTLD - 6
CAPTAIN - ?
APDNS - 5

(A) Decision Making Process:
Vote by ccTLD administrative contact
Task Force - structure making

(B) Secretariat :
Until Singapore meeting - APNG
After Singapore meeting - volunteer by JPNIC(1 year?)
to be decided in Singapore

(B) Form (e.g. whether to incorporate) and Location:

(B) Board Structure:

4. Other
- Press Conference/Press Release
Toru Takahashi and Bill Semich?
Short announcement on establishment of this new body
Bring summary of minute (by Friday afternoon)

- Mailing list would be apcctld-taskforce@apng.org
consisting of Task Force member and Secretariat

END

このページを評価してください