<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A couple of questions that are relevant to implementation (the bits I care about):</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">
<b class="">2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation
requests<br class=""><br class="">
</b>This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all
changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the
NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations
and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its
decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>As documented by NTIA at <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_management_12162014.pdf" class="">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_management_12162014.pdf</a>, the following is considered during "authorization":</div><div><br class=""></div><div>• Did ICANN follow the change notification process correctly?<br class="">• Transmitted securely?<br class="">• Includes the standard set of information (i.e., summary of requested changes)?<br class="">• Self-certification from ICANN that processes followed? </div><div>• Request for authorization?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Is the idea that the "independent third party" would consider the same set of information and utilize the same mechanisms currently used by NTIA?</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><b class="">3. Independent Appeals Panel<br class=""><br class="">
</b>An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested
changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are
still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally
agreed that the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may
also be a need for an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in
question during the appeal process.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>The implication of the last sentence is that there would be the introduction of some sort of notification period during root change processing in which interested parties could file an injunction/appeal. As this would be new, some issues to consider: How is that notification sent out? How long is that period? Who would have standing to file an injunction/appeal? How is that injunction request/appeal submitted? What changes would be subject to injunction, e.g., would 'emergency changes' be subject to this notification period and/or injunction-like mechanism?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>-drc</div><div><br class=""></div></div></div></body></html>