<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review

Title: Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:21 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx