hi all, i had a go at marking up Adam's draft. i'm walking us back just a bit on overall tone, and i've refined/narrowed a few points to get them a little more in line with the bottom-up approach. i don't feel like i've dramatically changed the thrust of the document, but others may disagree. :-) mikey On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:22 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments required a community review of DNS Security Stability & Resiliency (SSR). The SSR Review Team is now gathering public input on the set of issues it proposes for this review.

Attached is a discussion draft for BC submission, prepared by Adam Palmer.

Several of the 11 issues in this draft are empty — some because answers are given elsewhere in the draft; rest are blank because Adam wanted to leave room for other BC members to add their security expertise!

The Review Team is seeking responses by 6-April, so today (24-March) begins our 14-day review period for this discussion draft.

Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 1-April, these comments will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN on 6-April.

As always, BC members are also encouraged to submit their own responses and to share those with the BC list.

For topic background, see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues

Thanks again to Adam for volunteering to do this discussion draft.

And thanks to Jeff Brueggeman for serving on the SSR Review Team.

Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

<BC_on_SSR RT Issues [v1].docx>

- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

ICANN is now gathering public comment on the final report and recommendations by a work team focused on the Policy Development Process (PDP-WT) Below is a draft for BC comments prepared by Philip Sheppard. ICANN's Comment period closes 1-April, so today (25-March) begins an abbreviated 7-day review period for these abbreviated comments. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 30-March, these comments will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN on 1-April. For topic background, see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-pdp-final-report Thanks again to Philip Sheppard for his brief but pointed review of a report that's over 100 pages long. Thanks also to BC members who served on the PDP work team: Marilyn Cade Mike Rodenbaugh John Berard ---- DRAFT BC position on Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team Proposed Final Report & Recommendations General Comments At 109 pages the report is thorough but overly long. It is a report of a team with recommendations but not yet a guide for prospective participants in a PDP. As noted in recommendation 3 this work needs to be turned into a short practical manual on the PDP without references to the working team or recommendation number ## or extraneous points of discussion. The start of such a document in section 5 is good but seems overly long at around 15 pages. A rigorous edit is required. The flow charts are useful but overly complex. A simplified one for council initiated work only is needed. A flowchart showing timelines would be useful. Comments on specific recommendations 10 and 11. The BC is concerned that the “preliminary issues report” is being over engineered. This report is intended to be short and factual outlining the issue raised NOT solving it or adding opinion on its merit. Therefore an additional public comment period at this stage is both redundant and will waste time. 12. Whereas certain issues will indeed benefit from a workshop, making this a mandatory procedure is short sighted. 13. A possible impact analysis before a vote to start a PDP is an option that will be gamed by parties wishing to delay a new PDP. 16. Codifying a practice to delay seems a dangerous precedent. If done the wording needs to be clear that this is not a cumulative right potentially delaying a decision to launch a PDP by six Council meetings. Voting thresholds. There is a lot of discussion about Council voting thresholds. The BC recommends further changes to these should simplify not add complexity to an already overly complex structure.