<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I have a few more comments about this
topic.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>1. Isn't the GNSO Council usually responsible for reviewing
GNSO policies? That was certainly the case with the IRTP. So why is
that not the case with regard to the RSEP?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>2. The first sentence of the last paragraph in the Summary
of the draft SoW says, "<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
color=#000000>The review of the operation of the RSEP will allow ICANN to ensure
the process is meeting intended goals efficiently and
effectively.</FONT></SPAN>" It is my opinion that the problem with the
RSEP is not the process but rather implementation of the process that is not
"<FONT color=#000000 size=3>meeting intended goals efficiently and
effectively</FONT>". The three recent examples I would cite are single character
second level domain name services proposed by DotCoop, DotMobi and
VeriSign.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>3. In the section of the draft SoW titled Evaluation
of Registry Services Proposals, the fourth paragraph reads, "<SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Once
ICANN determines that the request as submitted is complete, ICANN will notify
the requesting registry operator or sponsoring organization that the 15-calendar
day review process has commenced. ICANN will conduct within 15 days a
preliminary determination on whether the proposed service raises significant
security or stability issues or competition issues.</SPAN>" It is my
opinion that this this not occur with VeriSign's single character second
level domain registry service proposal submitted in June 2008. If ICANN
Staff believe that they were in compliance with this provision, then it would be
helpful to receive an explanation of why they believe so.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=115374623-02022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>4. In the section of the draft SoW titled Tasks to be
Undertaken, item 2 says, "<FONT color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Deliver a report with observations
and recommendations to ICANN for consideration by ICANN, gTLD registries and the
GNSO Council. Those observations are expected to include:<B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></B></SPAN></FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">o<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">whether
the RSEP is meeting its intended purpose<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">o<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">whether
RSEP is consistent with the approved policy and implementation
plan<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">o<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">whether
the process is timely, efficient and open in
implementation<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">o<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">whether
there is sufficient opportunity for and realization of public input or comment
on proposed registry service requests<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">o<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">whether
the process and outcomes are predictable<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">o<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">whether
there is overlap with the PDP process<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000000><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">o<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">whether
there is overlap between the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel
(RSTEP) with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
(SSAC)</SPAN></FONT>"<SPAN class=115374623-02022009>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=115374623-02022009>This could be perceived
as a way to work around the GNSO PDP. Most of these issues are policy
issues. On a different note, what is meant by "<FONT size=3><FONT
color=#000000>overlap with the PDP process<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT>" and "<FONT
color=#000000 size=3>overlap between the Registry Services Technical Evaluation
Panel (RSTEP) with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
(SSAC)</FONT>"?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=115374623-02022009></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=115374623-02022009>Chuck
Gomes</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Patrick
Jones<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
council@gnso.icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] Draft Statement of Work
for Funnel Review<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Dear Council,<BR><BR>At the 20 November 2008 GNSO
Council meeting, ICANN staff alerted Council members that efforts were
underway to initiate a review of the gTLD registry funnel process – also known
as the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented
in July 2006.<BR> <BR>Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was
developed through the GNSO’s policy development process, and applies to all
gTLD registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with
ICANN.<BR> <BR>The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call
for a periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a
review is consistent with ICANN’s continuing efforts to evaluate and improve
policies and procedures.<BR> <BR>A draft statement of work regarding the
review has now been developed. The document will be used to identify and
retain a reviewer to evaluate the process as it has worked to
date.<BR> <BR>In view of the GNSO Council’s critical role in developing
the original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity to
review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is attached.
Please feel free to send any comments on the document directly to
me.<BR> <BR>An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and
subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and when
other milestones in the review process take place. <BR> <BR>Also, if you
are interested in being identified as a possible contact for the review
process itself, please let me know of your interest. We hope to finalize
the SOW in late February, so any comments should be submitted by 23 February
in order to be incorporated. <BR><BR>Patrick<BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Patrick L.
Jones<BR>Registry Liaison Manager &<BR>Support to ICANN Nominating
Committee<BR>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers<BR>4676
Admiralty Way, Suite 330<BR>Marina del Rey, CA 90292<BR>Tel: +1 310 301
3861<BR>Fax: +1 310 823 8649<BR><A
href="patrick.jones@icann.org">patrick.jones@icann.org</A>
<BR><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></FONT></BODY></HTML>