[CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas

Fri May 29 09:55:19 UTC 2015

First of all let me thank DT-N (is that Avri & Stephanie?) for doing this.  I find it quite helpful.  Below are my personal views regarding the DT-N review.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Duchesneau, Stephanie
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:22 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Cc: avri at acm.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas

Hi All,

In order to facilitate today's review of comments, DT-N has formulated a review of some of the major topics identified in the related public comments and an initial design team position (including identification of areas where further discussion is required. Our summary is below:

*         Composition: A large number of comments focused on the composition of the IFRT, though the "asks" varied widely. Some called for greater registry representation, some called for increased representation by Advisory Committees, others called for a balance between the GNSO/ccNSO participation. One comment called to remove the CSC liaison while another called for the entire CSC to participate and for 5 liaisons to be created. The structure proposed by the working group is an effort to balance between these different positions; we note that the structure was generally derived from the outcome of the intensive working weekend (then in the context of the MRT) that followed a survey of the working group on this topic.

[Chuck Gomes] I think that the structure is fairly well balanced considering what I think is a need to limit the total size to a not too large and dysfunctional size.

*         Geographic Representation: Some comments called out for geographic balance in the representation of the IFRT. The DT supports this principle but notes that implementation is difficult for a group of this small size, particularly where experience is key. To these ends we recommend that a principle that, to the extent possible, groups appointing more than one representative strive to have representatives from different geographic regions.

[Chuck Gomes] I believe this is a reasonable approach but it might be helpful to also encourage some cross-group collaboration before individual groups finalize their selections with the goal of increasing geographic diversity if possible.  One way of doing this might be to ask groups to communicate their preliminary selections to one another as a whole, evaluate the overall geographic balance, and then explore whether any of the groups have any flexibility to adjust their selections to improve the total geographic representation without compromising on needed expertise and qualifications.

*         Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review.

[Chuck Gomes] 1) If an IFR requires at least nine months to be completed (including selection of IFRT members), then an annual review would mean that we are almost constantly reviewing with little or no time to evaluate the results of previous reviews.  2) I would like to think that the IANA service should be relatively stable as it has been in the past; if that is true, then conducting periodic reviews too frequently may be overkill.  3) The option for Special IFRs provides the opportunity for more frequent reviews if specific needs are identified.  Therefore, I support the recommendation for an initial periodic review after two years and then every five years thereafter.

*         Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team.

[Chuck Gomes] Providing as much clarify as possible in terms of  what is to be reviewed would be helpful but, if we want objective reviews to occur, I don't see how we could explicitly predefine outcomes and I suspect that this is not what commenters were suggesting.  Providing general guidance for periodic reviews and more specific guidance for Special reviews will be very helpful but I think there should be enough flexibility to review unanticipated issues.

*         Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment.

[Chuck Gomes] I believe it is a good idea to use existing ICANN structures so as to avoid having to create new structures but there needs to be accommodation for those who are not part of ICANN structures so additional clarification of this make sense.  It might be best of ccTLD registries develop ways of doing this that are acceptable to them.  The same would apply for gTLD registries to the extent that this issue may apply to them.

*         Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts.

*         Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation)

*         Role of the Board: Some comments expressed concern about the role of the Board in the processes of implementing IFRT Recommendations or in the Separation Process. We note that this role has been limited to Board approval, which we believe is requisite in both instances. To address related concerns, in the revised process details have been added that rejection of these recommendations would have to be handled by the board in accordance with the thresholds and procedures for rejecting the output of a PDP.

*         Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT.

[Chuck Gomes] I agree with DT-N on this because the accountability mechanisms will be for ICANN.

Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).

[Chuck Gomes] I am biased toward the RySG recommendation in this regard, i.e., that a sufficient portion of registry fees be designated for IANA services and that those fees be used to support the IANA function operator regardless of who the IFO is.

Sorry for sending this out on such short order. Hope this aids today's discussion.

Best.

Stephanie

Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040  Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150529/3bffe318/attachment-0001.html>