[CCWG-ACCT] due diligence of ccTLD delegation changes

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Eberhard,

>>   ticking off check lists without looking beyond "traffic lights",

Actually usually we have a Board member act as shepherd for such a motion and do a little further due diligence to ensure all processes were followed.  In the past we had a separate Board committee do that.     This is particularly the case when Board members are contacted by parties within the country with any concerns.   Certainly any re-delegation gets quite a bit of scrutiny.

A key improvement in the process – would be to require publication of proposed changes and public comment processes to capture any concerns from the affected community.


>>  What we need to do is to get the FoI Principles established. 

>>  And, come to think of it, as far as the ccNSO is concerned (as per your suggestion) we can just run them as a PDP because all the heavy lifting has been done, and the ccNSO unanimously approves of them. Maybe we can even fast track them. 

Good idea.  This is exactly what the PDP process is intended for.


>>  We also need the IANA function Manager to publish ALL criteria it requires from a proposed (incoming) Manager. it would even make applications easier to make, and to evaluate.

Good idea also.   I was hoping actually that some of these recommendations would have come from the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions.  

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin