RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Title: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
Thanks Patrick. The purpose of both of my responses
was to provide initial feedback as requested. I look forward to your
responses to my questions.
Chuck
Chuck,
Thank you for the detailed questions. I
am working on a comprehensive response, but in the interim wanted to provide
some initial feedback. The Statement of Work was shared with the Council as a
draft, to solicit input from the Council as it was involved in the development
of the funnel process through the PDP. The intention of the review is not to
examine the creation of the Policy, but examine the implementation and
operation of the process.
I am happy to discuss this in the next
available Council call or in Mexico City.
Patrick
------
Forwarded Message
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:05:08 -0800
To: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>,
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
RE: [council] 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