<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [council] 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=372011813-04022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks Patrick. The purpose of both of my responses
was to provide initial feedback as requested. I look forward to your
responses to my questions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=372011813-04022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=372011813-04022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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> Patrick Jones
[mailto:patrick.jones@icann.org] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 04, 2009
8:11 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Gomes, Chuck<BR><B>Cc:</B>
council@gnso.icann.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [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">Chuck,<BR><BR>Thank you for the detailed questions. I
am working on a comprehensive response, but in the interim wanted to provide
some initial feedback. The Statement of Work was shared with the Council as a
draft, to solicit input from the Council as it was involved in the development
of the funnel process through the PDP. The intention of the review is not to
examine the creation of the Policy, but examine the implementation and
operation of the process. <BR><BR>I am happy to discuss this in the next
available Council call or in Mexico City.<BR><BR>Patrick<BR><BR>------
Forwarded Message<BR><B>From: </B>"Gomes, Chuck" <<FONT color=#0000ff><U><A
href="cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</A></U></FONT>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:05:08 -0800<BR><B>To: </B>Patrick Jones <<FONT
color=#0000ff><U><A
href="patrick.jones@icann.org">patrick.jones@icann.org</A></U></FONT>>,
<<FONT color=#0000ff><U><A
href="council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</A></U></FONT>><BR><B>Subject:
</B>RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel
Review<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
color=#0000fe><FONT face=Arial>I have a few more comments about this
topic.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000fe><FONT
face=Arial>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?<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000fe><FONT
face=Arial>2. The first sentence of the last paragraph in the Summary of the
draft SoW says, "</FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial>The review of the operation of
the RSEP will allow ICANN to ensure the process is meeting intended goals
efficiently and effectively.<FONT color=#0000fe>" It is my opinion that
the problem with the RSEP is not the process but rather implementation of the
process that is not "</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">meeting intended goals efficiently and
effectively</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#0000fe><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">".
The three recent examples I would cite are single character second level
domain name services proposed by DotCoop, DotMobi and
VeriSign.<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000fe><FONT
face=Arial>3. In the section of the draft SoW titled Evaluation of Registry
Services Proposals, the fourth paragraph reads, "</FONT></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>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.<FONT
color=#0000fe>" 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.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000fe><FONT
face=Arial>4. In the section of the draft SoW titled Tasks to be Undertaken,
item 2 says, "</FONT></FONT><FONT face=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:<FONT color=#0000fe> <BR><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT face="Courier New">o
</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>whether the RSEP is meeting its intended purpose<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Courier New">o
</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>whether RSEP is consistent with the approved policy and
implementation plan<BR></FONT><FONT face="Courier New">o
</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>whether the process is timely, efficient and open in
implementation<BR></FONT><FONT face="Courier New">o
</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>whether there is sufficient opportunity for and realization of
public input or comment on proposed registry service requests<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Courier New">o
</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>whether the process and outcomes are predictable<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Courier New">o
</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>whether there is overlap with the PDP process<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Courier New">o
</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>whether there is overlap between the Registry Services Technical
Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
(SSAC)<FONT color=#0000fe>" <BR>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></FONT></SPAN><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">overlap with the PDP
process</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#0000fe><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">" and
"</SPAN></FONT><FONT size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">overlap between the
Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security and
Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=#0000fe><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">"?<BR> <BR>Chuck
Gomes<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>