[bc-gnso] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System

[Mark W. Datysgeld]

Congrats to the drafters.

I particularly like the Suggestion, as per our recent discussions it has become more than clear that well-defined target dates need to be established.

Regards,
-- 
Mark W. Datysgeld from Governance Primer [www.markwd.website]
In partnership with AR-TARC and the Brazilian Association of Software Companies (ABES)

On August 9, 2019 2:52:36 PM GMT-03:00, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:
>Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency
>(BC), on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System.
>
>The BC welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on a New Cooperation
>and Governance Model for the Root Server System
>We have reviewed
>RSSAC037<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf>
>(A Proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root Server System),
>RSSAC038<https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1216343-2018-06-15-en>
>(RSSAC Advisory on the proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root
>Server System), New Cooperation and Governance Model for the Root
>Server
>System<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rss-governance-model-concept-paper-23apr19-en.pdf>
>and Draft Work Plan for RSS Governance Working Group (GWG) and ICANN
>Org<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-rss-gwg-charter-work-plan-23may19-en.pdf>,
>all by the ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC).
>
>Assessment
>Our assessment is that a development that integrates RSS governance and
>accountability within the global multi-stakeholder structure of ICANN
>is welcome, and that the proposed three-part structure comprised of a
>Root Server System Governance Board (RGB), a Root Server System
>Standing Committee (RSC) and a Root Server Operator Review Panel (RRP)
>is a practical mechanism for this integration.
>
>Concern
>While we believe that the governance model proposed is apt and
>balanced, we also are concerned that ICANN Org as a root operator
>itself could be faced with conflict of interest. The question is, Would
>ICANN Org be accountable also to the RSS Governance Board (RGB)? It is
>BC’s view that if the structural mechanism is to work well,
>accountability and balance can be achieved but the optimum would be for
>another independent body to operate the L-root currently operated by
>ICANN.  We notice that review of potential conflicts of interest are
>addressed in the GWG Draft Work Plan, but these are seemingly limited
>to the Finance and Secretariat functions and not to the L-root server
>concern expressed here.
>
>Suggestion
>On page 9 under Section 3.1 Root Server System Governance Working Group
>and on the requirement of the Working Group to Regularly report to the
>ICANN Board and ICANN community on its progress. We would like to
>suggest that the work 'regularly' be defined to be either monthly or
>quarterly or a week before regular ICANN board meetings.
>
>Clarification request
>On the document RSSAC037 page 8: Introduction. We are trying to
>reconcile the first statement The RSS began at the Information Sciences
>Institute (ISI) in 1984; and a subsequent statement on the 2nd
>paragraph which says After more than four decades of evolution, today’s
>RSS features root server operators (RSOs) from diverse organizations.
>We would appreciate clarification to know what is meant here because
>four decades after 1984 is 2024 and we are currently in 2019.
>
>Overall, the BC supports this model.
>
>--
>
>This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye and Mark Svancarek.
>It was approved in accord with our charter.
>
>--
>Steve DelBianco
>Vice Chair for Policy Coordination
>ICANN Business Constituency (BC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20190809/ecabbaa6/attachment.html>