[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V3.2

Sat Apr 18 14:29:49 UTC 2015

Thanks Marika.  My feedback is provided here.  Note that the page numbers I used refer to the redline version.

It is probably not a big issue but I wonder if we should define the terms 'ccTLD' and 'gTLD' early in the document, maybe in Section 1.A.  From what I can tell in the IANA Functions Contract, a gTLD appears to be defined as anything that is not a ccTLD except for .int, which appears to be treated separately.  Is .arpa a gTLD, or is it a special case like .int.  The reason I raise this is that in Section II.B several edits were made changing 'all gTLDs' to 'most gTLDs'.  Without a specific definition of a gTLD, it is not clear what the exceptions are.  Another way to handle this would be to add a footnote where we say 'most gTLDs' that lists the exceptions.

I think the first sentence of III.a on page 15 would be clearer if 'addressing these effects' is deleted at the end: "The sections below describe how the transition will affect each of the naming functions identified and what changes, if any, the CWG-Stewardship recommends addressing these effects."

I definitely think we need a glossary somewhere in the document that provides an easy place for readers to find the definitions of key terms, especially for new terms and acronyms, e.g., PTI, IANA Functions Operator, CSC, IANA Review Team.  I suspect that it will be difficult for those who have not been actively involved in the CWG to keep track of the definitions.

We need to make sure that the first time an acronym is used that we spell it out.  For example, in section III.A.ii on page 20, 'CSC' is used (I think for the first time).  This issue may be corrected in some cases when the sections are reordered.  For example, if what is now Section III.A.iii is moved ahead of section III.A.ii, then CSC would have already been defined.

In the second paragraph of section III.A.ii on page 20, we say: "The members of the IANA Function Review Team would be selected by the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and would include several liaisons from other operational communities."  What do we mean by operational communities?  Do we really intend to restrict it to operational communities?  If so, we should define what we mean.  If not, we probably should delete 'operational'.

In Section III.A.iii (CSC) we say: "The primary customers of the naming services are top level domain registry operators, but also include root server operators and other non-root zone functions."  This is a decision for DT-C, not me, but the last part of this sentence is not consistent with the charter.  We need to make it consistent with the composition section of the charter in Annex I starting on page 70 that includes the option for liaisons from ACs and SOs, etc.  In the case of the RSSAC, it is treated the same as other ACs.

Will the second bullet in section III.B on page 33 be deleted per the recommendations of DT-B: "Appeal Mechanism for ccTLD Delegations / Redelegations - [DT-B]"?

On pages 39-40, why was the text deleted for the 4th bullet under f): "Overlaps or interdependencies"?  What will replace it?  Same questions apply to g) on page 40 and j) on page 41.

In Annex D on page 47, we say: "A Special Periodic Review may be also be initiated by community action".  Shouldn't the word 'Periodic' be deleted?  We later say at the bottom of page 47: "The outcomes of a Periodic Review are not limited but not either prescribed and could include a variety of recommendations."  Should we change 'Periodic Review' to 'Reviews' so this statement includes both periodic and special reviews?  These questions are probably best answered by Avri and DT-N.

I don't know if I missed it in Annex D, but it doesn't seem to cover the responsibility of reviewing systemic IANA problems and the possibility of recommending escalation to accountability recommendations such as an RFP or accountability mechanisms that the CCWG recommends.  (Note the Problem Management Process proposed by DT-M.)

In Annex J (Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process), in Phase 2, step b on page 76:  'systems problem' should be changed to 'systemic problem'.

In Annex K (Problem Management Escalation Process), for step 3 on page 77, I think it would be a good idea to insert a footnote that says something like this: "The roles of the ccNSO and GNSO in this step should be further investigated to ensure that this is consistent with their missions as well as to  identify any actions that may be needed by the SOs to allow for this role."

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 5:58 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V3.2

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review the latest version of the CWG-Stewardship Transition Proposal. Please note that it is still very much work in progress as some key pieces are still missing such as the information from the legal memo that is forthcoming, outstanding work of the design teams (DT A) as well as final language from 'DT X'. However, we did already want to give you an opportunity to review where we are at and as such we would like to encourage you to instead of editing the document line by line, to focus on whether there is information missing or incorrect, the updated recommendations of some of the design teams (e.g. DT M and N) as well as reviewing some of the changes we have made for style and consistency purposes to the DT recommendations. Note that thanks to Kim Davies a number of clarifications have been made to section I and II.

We are still working on the annexes (focused on consistency and readability) as well as formatting and numbering of the overall document.

As we've moved quite some things around in section III to follow a more logical order, there is a lot of redline in the document which does not necessarily represent new or changed content, but also content that has changed position. As such, you will also find attached a clean version to facilitate your review.

Please share any comments you may have (preferably with a reference to page number and section) with the mailing list by Monday 23.59 UTC at the latest.

Best regards,

Marika
________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150418/7df5b3bc/attachment-0001.html>