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

Fri May 29 16:51:10 UTC 2015

I consider all this as the criteria to be part of ITP.

Geographic representation:

Stakeholder representation

 Skill set and expertise

Limited size of Board

Accountability to the overall community

*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*

*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member*
*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr

2015-05-29 10:13 GMT+01:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>:

>  Erick,
>
>
>
> I have a question for you.
>
>
>
> How would you rank the following in terms of importance for a PTI Board?
>
> ·         Geographic representation
>
> ·         Stakeholder representation
>
> ·         Skill set and expertise
>
> ·         Limited size of Board
>
> ·         Accountability to the overall community
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Erick Iriarte
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 3:35 AM
> *To:* Duchesneau, Stephanie
> *Cc:* avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment
> Areas
>
>
>
> Dear Stephanie
>
>
>
> Thanks for the information. In the special cases of ccTLDs. Now we have
> ccNSO members and ccNSO non members, we need to be clear in that. Diversity
> (by TLDs origin (gTLDs / ccTLDs) and by Region) is important for
> equilibrium in the composition of any board.
>
>
>
> Erick
>
>
>
>  El 29/5/2015, a las 2:21, Duchesneau, Stephanie <
> Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us> escribió:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>    - *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.
>
>
>    - *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.
>
>
>    - *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.
>
>
>    - *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.
>
>
>    - *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.
>
>   *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).
>
>
>
>   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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150529/267f1b39/attachment-0001.html>