[council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review

[Gomes, Chuck]

I have a few more comments about this topic.
 
1. Isn't the GNSO Council usually responsible for reviewing GNSO
policies?  That was certainly the case with the IRTP.  So why is that
not the case with regard to the RSEP?
 
2. The first sentence of the last paragraph in the Summary of the draft
SoW says, "The review of the operation of the RSEP will allow ICANN to
ensure the process is meeting intended goals efficiently and
effectively."  It is my opinion that the problem with the RSEP is not
the process but rather implementation of the process that is not
"meeting intended goals efficiently and effectively". The three recent
examples I would cite are single character second level domain name
services proposed by DotCoop, DotMobi and VeriSign.
 
3. In the section of the draft SoW titled Evaluation of Registry
Services Proposals, the fourth paragraph reads, "Once ICANN determines
that the request as submitted is complete, ICANN will notify the
requesting registry operator or sponsoring organization that the
15-calendar day review process has commenced. ICANN will conduct within
15 days a preliminary determination on whether the proposed service
raises significant security or stability issues or competition issues."
It is my opinion that this this not occur with VeriSign's single
character second level domain registry service proposal submitted in
June 2008.  If ICANN Staff believe that they were in compliance with
this provision, then it would be helpful to receive an explanation of
why they believe so.
 
4. In the section of the draft SoW titled Tasks to be Undertaken, item 2
says, "Deliver a report with observations and recommendations to ICANN
for consideration by ICANN, gTLD registries and the GNSO Council. Those
observations are expected to include: 

o                    whether the RSEP is meeting its intended purpose

o                    whether RSEP is consistent with the approved policy
and implementation plan

o                    whether the process is timely, efficient and open
in implementation

o                    whether there is sufficient opportunity for and
realization of public input or comment on proposed registry service
requests

o                    whether the process and outcomes are predictable

o                    whether there is overlap with the PDP process

o                    whether there is overlap between the Registry
Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security and
Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)"  

This could be perceived as a way to work around the GNSO PDP.  Most of
these issues are policy issues. On a different note, what is meant by
"overlap with the PDP process" and "overlap between the Registry
Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security and
Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)"?

 

Chuck Gomes


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones
	Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM
	To: council at gnso.icann.org
	Subject: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
	
	
	Dear Council,
	
	At the 20 November 2008 GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff
alerted Council members that efforts were underway to initiate a review
of the gTLD registry funnel process - also known as the Registry
Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) - that was first implemented in July
2006.
	 
	Staff reminded Council members that the RSEP was developed
through the GNSO's policy development process, and applies to all gTLD
registries and registry sponsoring organizations under contract with
ICANN.
	 
	The adoption of the RSEP by the ICANN Board did not call for a
periodic review of the process, but ICANN staff is of the opinion that a
review is consistent with ICANN's continuing efforts to evaluate and
improve policies and procedures.
	 
	A draft statement of work regarding the review has now been
developed.  The document will be used to identify and retain a reviewer
to evaluate the process as it has worked to date.
	 
	In view of the GNSO Council's critical role in developing the
original RSEP, staff would like to give Council members the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft document. A copy of the draft SOW is
attached.  Please feel free to send any comments on the document
directly to me.
	 
	An announcement will be made when the SOW is released and
subsequent announcements will be made when the reviewer is selected and
when other milestones in the review process take place. 
	 
	Also, if you are interested in being identified as a possible
contact for the review process itself, please let me know of your
interest.  We hope to finalize the SOW in late February, so any comments
should be submitted by 23 February in order to be incorporated. 
	
	Patrick
	
	
	-- 
	Patrick L. Jones
	Registry Liaison Manager &
	Support to ICANN Nominating Committee
	Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292
	Tel: +1 310 301 3861
	Fax: +1 310 823 8649
	patrick.jones at icann.org   
	
	
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090202/61344542/attachment.html>