[DTB] Call on Thursday 9 April

[Grace Abuhamad]

Thanks for your responses. The call is scheduled for 15:00 UTC today. I just
sent a calendar notice with the call details.
Best, 
Grace

From:  Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date:  Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 6:29 PM
To:  Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, "DT B Distribution
List (dt2 at icann.org)" <dt2 at icann.org>
Subject:  [DTB] Call on Thursday 9 April

Dear all, 
Please reply to me off-list with your availability for a call on Thursday 9
April. We will schedule a time for you.
Thank you, 
Grace

From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 4:27 PM
To: "DT B Distribution List (dt2 at icann.org)" <dt2 at icann.org>
Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Subject: DT B - Draft Report and Recommendations

Colleagues - I have prepared a draft report for DT B, attached.  The actual
report itself is just one page, which I have copied below, though there are
a number of appendices.  I have put the survey results into an MSWord
document, which is Appendix B in the report.  I propose that we try to
schedule a call for tomorrow to review this, which I will ask that Grace set
up.  Given the overall timing, comments and edits in advance of the call
would be greatly appreciated.
 
Allan
 
Report of Design Team B - Assessment of the Level of Consensus within the
ccTLD Community in Regard to a Possible Appeal Mechanism for ccTLD
Delegations and Redelegations
 
Recommendation
 
The CWG recommends not including any appeal mechanism that would apply to
ccTLD delegations and redelegations in the IANA stewardship transition
proposal. 
 
Background and Supporting Findings
 
While the CWG’s December 1, 2014 draft proposal contained an appeal
mechanism that would apply to ccTLD delegation and redelegations, some
question arose as to the level of support within the ccTLD community on
aspects of this proposal (see Appendix A).   Design Team B was formed to
assess whether there might be sufficient consensus within the ccTLD
community on such an appeal mechanism.  DT B decided to undertake a survey
of the ccTLD community to assess this (see the survey attached as Appendix
A).  The survey was sent to the ‘ccTLD World List’, the most comprehensive
list of the managers of the 248 ccTLDs on March 23, 2015 with responses
accepted to April 3, 2015.  Overall, responses on behalf of just 28 managers
were received (see Appendix B).  Such a low level of response was judged to
be insufficient a basis to allow for the inclusion of an appeal mechanism in
the CWG’s proposal.  Acknowledging the difficulty of drawing any conclusions
from a survey with such a low response rate, it is nevertheless worthwhile
to point out that while 93% of respondents (Q.1) believe there is a need for
an appeal mechanism, only 58% (Q.2) believe that it should be now as part of
the IANA oversight transition and 73% (Q.3) agreed that it could be
developed after the IANA transition has taken place.  Questions designed to
probe the level of consensus on the parameters of such an appeal mechanism
(see Q.5 – Q.9) elicited no consensus suggesting that it would take
considerable time for the ccTLD community to come to a consensus view on the
details of an appeal mechanism.  Some 71% of respondents (Q.3) indicated
that they would not wish to see the design of such a mechanism delay the
finalization of the IANA stewardship transition.
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt2/attachments/20150409/54b4c34c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt2/attachments/20150409/54b4c34c/smime-0001.p7s>