Public Forum: ccTLDs on evolution and reform.

E&R committee has taken some things into account, other things to be desired. Discussion in the afternoon. Will publish response to blueprint. Considered functions and service level required from IANA. Establish differentiated processes for differ…

E&R committee has taken some things into account, other things to be desired. Discussion in the afternoon. Will publish response to blueprint. Considered functions and service level required from IANA. Establish differentiated processes for different types of database update requests which can be made by ccTLD managers. Expedite routine requests. Automatically process all requests from ccTLD manager which don’t relate to change of manager. Devise authentication mechanism. Formal change control system, so changes to database can be tracked. Maintain audit trail available to ccTLD managers. Procedure for emergency or urgent technical changes. Time zone differences! KPNQwest failure has underlined need, highlights stability risks in absence of procedure. Reports that ICANN has refused or delayed urgent technical changes for procedural reasons; requested zone transfer. Regret that Internet stability was impacted as a result. RFC 1591 sole guidance. ccTLD managers committed to funding of necessary IANA services. Contribution to more general community services, like coming to ICANN meetings. Joint WGs with GAC on certain topics. Useful and constructive discussions.

Cerf, Andy MM: Issue to be addressed, problem to be solved. Amadeu: Technical changes most frequently mentioned problem. Wants table of different situations which can arise around change requests.

For more on the problems related to the KPNQest failure, you may also wish to look at this draft, which was linked earlier from ICANNwatch. The ccTLD managers’ communiqué (which is essentially what was read in the public forum, see above) is also available online.