[Comments-csc-charter-rt-initial-11apr18] DENIC eG's Comments regarding CSC Charter Review

[Peter Koch]

On behalf of DENIC eG, the ccTLD Registry for DE, I would
like to submit the following comments:

1) DENIC appreciates the detailed report provided by the CSC Review Team
   and supports the findings and proposed changes to the CSC Charter.

2) With respect to the RT's scope, which includes potential ambiguities
   in the CSC charter, we would like to suggest that where the charter
   says:

        The CSC, in consultation with registry operators, is authorized to discuss with the IANA Functions Operator ways to enhance the provision of IANA's operational services for any of the following reasons:
        o to meet changing technological environments;
        o as a means to address performance issues; or
        o other unforeseen circumstances.

   the first bullet item might benefit from a clarification of scope.
   While, to the best of our knowledge, this option has not been invoked
   to date, there have been questions around technical parameters
   subject to the evolution of the environment, but otherwise unrelated
   to service levels, that were not deemed to be within the purview of the CSC.

3) As a purely editorial matter, for better readability, we would like
   to suggest that in the composition of the CSC membership, as specified
   through

        Membership Composition
        The CSC should be kept small and comprise representatives with direct experienceand knowledge of IANA naming functions. At a minimum the CSC will comprise:
        # Two individuals representing gTLD Registry Operators
        # Two individuals representing ccTLD Registry Operators
        # One additional TLD representative not considered a ccTLD or gTLD registry operator such as the IAB for .ARPA could also be included in the minimum requirements but is not mandatory.

   the third bullet item be rephrased to, in line with current practice,
   reflect the optional nature of this position.  The current text is
   self-contradicting and appears to be an editing remark left over from
   the initial drafting process.

4) Further to item (2) above, and following the RT's example of also raising
   issues outside the scope of charter review, there do exist issues of concern
   beyond CSC's scope, not necessarily strictly operational within PTI's
   remit and also not clearly within the scope of any other AC or SO (or
   RZERC, for that matter). The KSK rollover, the choice of technical
   DNSSEC parameters, "technical checks" applied by both the IFO and the RZM
   as well as proposed changes to the authentication and authorization model
   for root zone changes may serve as examples.  Any gap cannot be identified
   by a review of any single involved entity. So, acknowledging the concerns
   raised by others regarding the workload due to parallel and/or overlapping
   reviews, we would like to suggest an additional issue based gap analysis.

Kind regards,
   Peter Koch, DENIC eG

-- 
Peter Koch              |                          |          pk at DENIC.DE
DENIC eG                |                          |       +49 69 27235-0
Kaiserstraße 75-77      |                          |
60329 Frankfurt am Main |                          | https://www.DENIC.DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eingetr. Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main
Vorstand: Helga Krüger, Martin Küchenthal, Andreas Musielak, Dr. Jörg Schweiger
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller