SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Update on ccTLD Agreements: Insights from the Montevideo Meeting

prentice avatar
prentice
16 diapositives · 274 Views · Oct 02, 2014

This update discusses the recent developments in ccTLD agreements following the Montevideo meeting on September 9, 2001. It outlines two model agreements: one for triangular situations involving national governments and another for legacy situations. Emphasizing transparency and community discussions, the update highlights the need for formalized relationships between ccTLDs and ICANN, ensuring reliability and accountability. Based on insights from the past two years of community meetings, it details the progress made and the importance of adapting agreements to diverse ccTLD management structures.

#update on cctld agreements: insights from the montevideo meeting #update on cctld agreements: insights from the montevideo meeting ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Update on ccTLD Agreements: Insights from the Montevideo Meeting - slide 1
01 / 16Update on ccTLD Agreements: Insights from the Montevideo Meeting
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Update on ccTLD Agreements: Insights from the Montevideo Meeting
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Update on ccTLD Agreements Montevideo9 September, 2001Andrew McLaughlin

  2. Introduction • Posted last week: • ccTLD Update, with background and explanation • Two model agreements: Agreement for Triangular • Situations; MoU for Legacy Situations • Reasons for posting • Finalization of proposed agreement with auDA • Facilitate one-to-one negotiations withtransparency to everyone • Provide texts for community discussions

  3. ccTLD Update Postings • Discussion paper overview • Based on past two years of face-to-faceand ccTLD constituency meetings • Built on materials and drafts from community • Background on the role and responsibilities of ccTLDs in the DNS • History of ccTLD delegations • RFC 1591; IANA News Memos; ICP-1

  4. Need for Agreements • Make ICANN-ccTLD relationships: • Formalized & defined • Transparent to all • Reliable • ICANN’s MoU with US Government • Complete transition means ‘developappropriate relationships with other entitiesinvolved in the Internet’s operation’

  5. Key contributions from the community • ccTLD Best Practice Guidelines for ccTLDManagers (version 4.1, June 2001) • Published by ccTLD Constituency • Reflects well established principles of trusteeshipand responsibility to local Internet community • GAC Principles • Emphasizes private sector leadership • Framework of accountability

  6. Areas of Agreement • As Internet increases in importance foreveryone, good idea to makerelationships more solid, formal,transparent, and reliable. • Delegated ccTLD manager serves as atrustee in service of the local Internetcommunity

  7. Big Picture “The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the globalInternet community.” — J. Postel, RFC 1591

  8. Multiple Models Required • No single agreement, or singlestructure, will work for every ccTLD • Enormous diversity of managementstructures • Organizational forms • Mechanisms of accountability • Relationships (or not) with governments

  9. Two Basic Situations • Legacy situation: The IANA monitors thetrust locally and globally • Triangular situation: The nationalgovernment, where interested, commitsto responsible monitoring of the localinterest; IANA monitors the global interest

  10. Documents for the Two Situations • Legacy situation: Agreement betweenICANN and ccTLD manager • Triangular situation: • ccTLD manager & national government: agreementor equivalent addressing local interest (see .caUmbrella Agreement) • National government & ICANN: letter or othercommunication • ccTLD manager & ICANN: agreement coveringglobal interest • Flexibility to accommodate other situations

  11. Points to be covered • Redelegation & and applicable principles • Local and global policy responsibilities • ccTLD ==> local Internet community • ICANN ==> global Internet community • ccTLD relationship with ICANN/IANA • Detailed definition of ICANN/IANA responsibilities& standards for performing them • ICANN funding for DNS coordinationfunctions, root server, etc.

  12. Triangular Situation • Applies where ccTLD and government reach their own arrangement. • Topics covered • Recognize delegation; standards for redelegation. • Local and global policy responsibilities • ccTLD -- ICANN/IANA relationship • Technical specification • Stable and secure registry & nameserver operations • ICANN/IANA responsibilities to maintain: • Authoritative root server system • Authoritative and public available ccTLD database • Audit trail regarding changes & redelegation • ICANN funding – ‘in accordance with an equitable scale, based on ICANN’s total funding

  13. Legacy Situations • Government not directly involved • Model MoU for legacy situations • Light & minimalist • Memorializes existing intendedcommitments of ICANN and ccTLDmanager • Balance: Government informed, butconsent not required • Work this out in cooperation with ccTLDmanager

  14. Progress to Date • Steady progress • (What a long, strange trip it’s been…) • Each ccTLD is in a different situationregarding type of agreement and timing • E.g., Australia (.au) • Strong need for face-to-face discussion &negotiation; also strong need fortransparency & community discussion • Understand local situations; matrix into globalframework • Staff capacity: We’re able to do 5 a month

  15. What’s next… • A ‘non-legal’ explanation of the current models posted. • Triangular model where GAC principles have been implemented; Legacy model as baseline for all other situations. • Regional meetings provide great opportunities to go through models in gruesome detail. • Face to face meetings have been useful and will be focus in coming months.

  16. A Plea • Read the model agreements WITH theccTLD Update! • Lots of good explanation and context • Effort to avoid misinterpretation ormisunderstanding