[DTB] DT B - Draft Report and Recommendations

Thu Apr 9 15:50:37 UTC 2015

Colleagues – thank you for your comments on our call today.  I have revised the report to reflect the discussion.  I have attached both a ‘track changes’ and a clean ‘final’ text for your review.  I have also pasted the text of the first page below for ease of viewing on your mobiles!

As discussed, since there were no changes suggested for the recommendation itself, we will consider that the DT-B has approved the report unless objections or edits are received by 11:00 UTC tomorrow, April 13.

Thank you

Allan

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).  After informing the ccTLD community about the upcoming survey, it 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 an insufficient a basis to provide a mandate for the inclusion of an appeal mechanism in the CWG’s proposal.  While acknowledging the limitations of drawing any conclusions from a survey with such a low response rate, it is nevertheless worthwhile pointing out that these limited responses tended to reinforce the overall recommendation.  While 93% of respondents (Q.1) believe there is a need for an appeal mechanism, only 58% (Q.2) believe that it should be developed and introduced now as part of the IANA oversight transition and 73% (Q.3) agreed that it should be developed and introduced 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.

From: Allan MacGillivray
Sent: April-08-15 4:28 PM
To: DT B Distribution List (dt2 at icann.org)
Cc: Grace Abuhamad
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/db43f525/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DTB Report Track Changes.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34953 bytes
Desc: DTB Report Track Changes.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt2/attachments/20150409/db43f525/DTBReportTrackChanges-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DTB Report Final.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 34564 bytes
Desc: DTB Report Final.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt2/attachments/20150409/db43f525/DTBReportFinal-0001.docx>