- comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18@icann.org

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] Ratified: ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 22, 2018

June 22, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Dra…>. Ratification information has been included on the cover page. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [ignature_1301707279]

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] FW: Ratified: ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review
by Jennifer Bryce June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Monday, June 18, 2018 at 5:16 AM To: "comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18(a)icann.org" <comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18(a)icann.org> Cc: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> Subject: Ratified: ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Dra…>. Ratification information has been included on the cover page. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [nature_1843523883]

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] Comments from Mohit Batra on - “Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review”
by Mohit Batra June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

*Dear ICANN / Lars,PFA my comments on Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review, and kindly acknowledge.Please note that these comments are purely in my personal capacity, and don’t represent the views of my employer.* *Thanks & Regards,Mohit BatraTechnology AnalystNational Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)www.nixi.in <http://www.nixi.in>www.mohitbatra.in <http://www.mohitbatra.in>ICANN-60 fellowISOC fellow to IETF 99/95https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohitbatra80/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohitbatra80/>https://www.twitter.com/mohitbatra80 <https://www.twitter.com/mohitbatra80>*

2 1

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] RrSG Response to Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review
by Zoe Bonython June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), I would like to submit the attached response to the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] RSSAC Draft Final Report Comment with respect to the RZERC
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

This comment is submitted purely in my personal capacity. Alan Greenberg ========================== I was somewhat taken aback at the multiple references to the confusion between the RZERC and several other bodies. I was the leader of the sub-group in the ICANN IANA Stewardship Transition Working Group that was responsible to addressing how to replace the NTIA role overseeing IANA. As such, I essentially was the architect of the RZERC, although I have no claim to having given it its name. The US Department of Commerce, through the NTIA, was involved in any and all changes to how IANA functions, what tools it used and what procedures it followed. The sub-group recommended that for a wide range of low-level issues, no such oversight was required, other than normal management functions within IANA. However, for substantial changes (examples were the implementation of DNSSEC, radical changes in workflow and major new software tools), there should still be some oversight, and that should be carried out by a group of knowledgeable individuals representing the full range of groups that interact with IANA or should have input into such changes (SSAC, RSSAC, ASO, IETF, GTLD and cc Registries and the Root Zone Maintainer), with that group advising the ICANN Board who would grant the formal approval previously granted by the NTIA. The name chosen for the group, the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee unfortunately implies that it has a responsibility covering the overall root zone operation and not just the IANA-related aspects - up to and including the publication of the zone file something that was never even contemplated. However, the Charter (<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/revised-rzerc-charter-08aug16-e…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/revised-rzerc-charter-08aug16-e…) does make its scope clear: "The Committee is expected to review proposed architectural changes to the content of the DNS root zone, the systems including both hardware and software components used in executing changes to the DNS root zone, and the mechanisms used for distribution of the DNS root zone. The Committee shall, as determined necessary by its membership, make recommendations related to those changes for consideration by the ICANN Board." In my mind, this group might also be a valuable one to involve if indeed major changes were planned to the Root Zone itself, but that was not the reason it was created nor does it have formal oversight responsibilities past the content, creation and publication of the zone file.

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] NCSG Comment
by Rafik Dammak June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Hi, please find attached NCSG comment on RSSAC2 review draft report. Thanks. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] RSSAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the Second Organizational Review of the RSSAC
by Carlos Reyes June 10, 2018

June 10, 2018

Hello, Please find attached the RSSAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the Second Organizational Review of the RSSAC. Best, Carlos Reyes on behalf of the RSSAC Carlos Reyes | Policy Support and Community Services Senior Manager carlos.reyes(a)icann.org | +1 (202) 802-8019 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] Ratification Pending: ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 10, 2018

June 10, 2018

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Dra…>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the Statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the Statement is pending ALAC ratification. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<http://www.twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [ignature_1903793541]

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft Report of RSSAC2 Review
by Steve DelBianco June 10, 2018

June 10, 2018

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) is pleased with the outcome of the RSSAC review and fully agrees with the recommendations. As established in the report, the BC is highly concerned that RSSAC does not consider itself accountable to ICANN Board and Community even though it is stipulated in its Charter. The recommendation for RSSAC Charter update to ensure its stakeholders are clearly indicated should therefore be prioritized. The BC is also concerned over distrust of ICANN by some members of RSSAC who are Root Server Operators (RSO). We believe this might be connected with the void created by the non-replacement of the NTIA oversight role after the transition. The BC is of the opinion that this gap should urgently be addressed in the interest of the Internet Community and the need to build confidence on that critical Internet infrastructure. One implication of this gap as noted in the report is lower weight given to RSSAC advice The BC agrees with the recommendation that RSSAC membership be opened to non-RSO anycast instance providers, and to public DNS resolvers and provisioning side interested parties such as TLD registries and the ccNSO. This would foster diversity and enrich the depth of its advice to ICANN Board. Finally, as also indicated in the report, not much is known about the activities of RSSAC in the community. A renewed RSSAC should establish a community-facing outreach programme as a measure of its transparency and accountability to the community. This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye and was approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

[Comments-rssac2-review-final-01may18] RySG comment on Draft Final Report on RSSAC2 Review
by Paul Diaz June 10, 2018

June 10, 2018

On behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), please find attached our input on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC2 Review. In the interest of time, we did not conduct a vote on these comments. We did discuss them on our mailing list and during a biweekly conference call, and no member opposed their submission. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Best, P Paul Diaz Chairman, Registries Stakeholder Group Mobile:+1 703.973.1667 | Skype: pdiaz(a)pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>

1 0