<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; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Hi Allan,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maarten</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Allan MacGillivray <<a href="mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca">allan.macgillivray@cira.ca</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Wednesday 8 April 2015 22:27<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"DT B Distribution List (<a href="mailto:dt2@icann.org">dt2@icann.org</a>)" <<a href="mailto:dt2@icann.org">dt2@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>[DTB] DT B - Draft Report and Recommendations<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Allan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><u>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<o:p></o:p></u></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><u>Recommendation<o:p></o:p></u></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The CWG recommends not including any appeal mechanism that would apply to ccTLD delegations and redelegations in the IANA stewardship transition proposal.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><u>Background and Supporting Findings<o:p></o:p></u></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>