Hi Chris,
Thanks for your feedback!
I do recommend you to attend the webinar that the ccTLD representatives in the CWG are organizing. Answering/discussing these questions is exactly what that webinar is for.
You are more than welcome to join the one next week on Tuesday, but there will be one organized for the AP region as well.
While the regional organisations are helping to disseminate it they are not the client for this survey.
However, since you addressed your questions to me I can try to provide context and some answers to the questions you have below. The ccTLD reps in the CWG (cc’ed) can add where needed.
As a general comment: this survey is a tool to get input from the ccTLD community on the overarching questions that are being addressed in the CWG. It does not provide answers and or predictions of the final outcome.
5.1. This refers to the NTIA’s present role. That transactional role will disappear. Should it be replaced as it is? There is a question (13) on automation levels that allows you to make the distinctions you identify.
5.2 Yes, correct. It will depend on the structure defined in the final proposal what possible basis there is. The discussion on which SO/ACs should be in that oversight committee is raging on the CWG list and is not addressed in this survey.
6. Depending on the outcome on the issues raised in questions 5.1 and 5.2 there _might_ be an oversight body with one or two functions.
1. The contractual oversight function would mainly be dealing with checking SLAs.
2. The transactional oversight function could be checking correct application of existing policies. (e.g. The FoI work could provide guidance for this)
This question aims to understand how ccTLDs want to deal with representation if such a body is created.
8. This is about policy making that affects ccTLDs. Nobody is questioning that ccTLD policies should be dealt with on a local level. This is about policies that affect ccTLDs on a global level – the only example that comes to mind is the ccTLD IDN fast track.
9. Until the transition, some feel that the NTIA has the ultimate authority resulting from its transactional overview role. That is disappearing. Who (if anyone) do we want to take that role?
10. On any action or inaction by IANA that affects the ccTLDs operations.
12. Yes, section 1.2 of the ICANN response sets out the technical requirements and are incorporated in the contract by reference.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Peter
From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au]
Sent: vrijdag 31 oktober 2014 13:00
To: Peter Van Roste
Cc: ga@centrlists.org; Lise Fuhr; Paul M Kane; Staffan Jonson; Iriarte & Asociados; Vika Mpisane; rtldo@aptld.org; ccNSO Members; ccNSO Council; member@aptld. org; ccTLD Community List; cctldworld@icann.org
Subject: Re: [centr-ga] [IST] Survey and Webinar
Importance: High
Peter,
Before .au answers the survey, some questions.
5.1 Is there a need for an external (to ICANN) IANA oversight mechanism to replace the transactional oversight provided by NTIA's present role? (In this role, the NTIA approved the change requests for the root zone.)
In respect to all changes authorised by a ccTLD even if those changes are made as part of an automated process? Changes that amount to a change of manager? An appeals mechanism to ensure that revocation and delegation doesn’t occur without an oversight?
5.2 Is there a need for an external (to ICANN) IANA oversight mechanism to replace the contractual oversight provided by NTIA's present role? (This allowed the NTIA to reassign the contract if needed.)
I assume this means a body that could ‘re-let’ the contract. Is that correct? If so, on what basis? Cross ICANN constituency (ccNSO, gNSO, ALAC and GAC)? A wider community? Just the ccTLDs?
6. If a new oversight mechanism is to be established (replacing the oversight executed by the NTIA), who should represent the ccTLDs interest in such a mechanism?
An oversight mechanism to ‘re-let’ the contract or the ‘tick box’ approval of changes or both? Or an appeals mechanism to cover revocation and delegation?
8. It is important to keep policy making functions separate from IANA functions
What policy? Policy relating to RFC 1591? Policy relating to gTLDs?
9. The ultimate authority for entries in the IANA database should be
Do you mean the ultimate authority for checking the entries? Or resolving disputes in respect to entries? Or the entity that can refuse to authorise changes? Or something else?
10. If the IANA operator does not perform well or abuses its position, the affected ccTLD should have the opportunity to an independent and binding appeal process.
In respect to service levels? In respect to a revocation and delegation?
12. What do you believe to be the most appropriate forum to develop objective technical standards for the operational requirements for the IANA functions
Do you mean the technical standards currently governed by the contract with the USG or something else?
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 31 Oct 2014, at 20:08 , Peter Van Roste <peter@centr.org> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
On behalf of the ccTLD representatives in the CWG, the regional organisations are sending out a survey on the IANA stewardship transition.
The goal of this survey is to understand your views and expectations of how IANA should be structured in the future.
The survey can be found here:
https://ru.surveymonkey.com/s/ccTLD_IANA_RU (Russian) - will be available shortly
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ccTLD_IANA_CN (Chinese) - will be available shortly
If you have any questions about the survey, feel free to contact any of the CWG representatives (in CC) or myself.
We need your responses by November 12th COB UTC.
In addition I want to share the details of a webinar that will take place on Tuesday November 4th at 8 - 9 AM UTC (9 – 10 AM CET).
The webinar will provide an overview of the state of things and the background for the survey and allow for questions on the survey.
This webinar will also be held for other regions, so if this time is inconvenient to you, let me know and I’ll provide you with the details of the alternatives.
Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/
Conference ID: 2838
Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-istp/
I would strongly encourage you to attend the webinar and have a look at the survey before. Your input is crucial.
Thank you in advance for your responses!
Regards,
Peter
<image001.jpg> | Peter Van Roste General Manager
CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 www.centr.org – twitter: centrnews |