[DT-F] URGENT: My thoughts on DT-F Replies to Public Comments.

[Alan Greenberg]

Marika has provided excerpts from the CWG Public Comments that might 
be applicable to DT-F. I have reviewed them and here is my input. 
Please indicate whether you concur or how you would alter them. Those 
potentially applying to DT-F are in PINK.

We have very little time to respond, so I would appreciate prompt replies.

Item 293. My understanding is that DT0D recommended that the NTIA 
Authorization function related to RZ *AND* Whois changes is not 
longer needed. Any reference to the RZ authorization function whold 
be changed to include RZ Whois as well.

Item 294. This is a valid comment. Although DT-F did not advocate 
publishing redelegation requests, we did use it as an example of a 
possible report. I would suggest keeping the example, since it has 
been an oft-requested report, but adding a caveat to this effect.

Item 297.1 The first part implies that there should be formal 
"community" participation in the approval process. Although certainly 
a Public Comment might be warranted, I cannot see having a community 
vote on such matters (as implied by the word "oversight"). Comments??

Item 297.2. It is reasonable that there be a linkage between any 
advisory group that would recommend tat significant changes be 
approved, and the CSC. I will incorporate that into the next version 
of the DT-F Recommendations.

Item 300.1. My understanding is that all changes ARE currently 
verified with registries. David. Does that match your understanding?

Item 300.2. It is reasonable to specify that directo customers be 
included. I am not at all sure I would restrict it to them and IANA.

Item 300.3. Correct. We did decide that it should be the ICANN Board, 
but it either was omitted accidentally or the decision was made after 
publication.

Item 304. Noted and the next version of the Recommendations will 
provide further details.

Item 306.1. Noted and the next version of the Recommendations will 
provide further details.

Item 306.2. We have no power to ensure an update on the RZ Maintainer 
Cooperative Agreement. "Specifically, we call the CWG to include a 
mechanism that would enable tracking of content changes in the Root 
Zone and reversal if necessary." seems to not be related to the 
previous sentence, but in any case, seems to be something that could 
be considered in the recommended post-transition review.

Alan








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150601/711d15eb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG - DT-Colour-Public Comment Review Tool.docx
Type: application/msword
Size: 277301 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150601/711d15eb/CWG-DT-Colour-PublicCommentReviewTool-0001.docx>