[DTB] DT B - Draft Report and Recommendations

[Maarten Simon]

Hi Allan,

Thank you for the good work done. I do not see a need for edits. I agree with the overall conclusion and the difficulty to draw any other than ‘ no concensus’ because of the limited number of responses. I am only a bit puzzled by the answers received on questions 2 a en 2b as that outcome seems to conflict. Good to have a discussion this (for me afternoon), but as I already said, I think the concept is fine and probably final.

Best,

Maarten

From: Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>>
Date: Wednesday 8 April 2015 22:27
To: "DT B Distribution List (dt2 at icann.org<mailto:dt2 at icann.org>)" <dt2 at icann.org<mailto:dt2 at icann.org>>
Subject: [DTB] 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/20150409/05d079c2/attachment.html>