NTIA IANA function questions to be based on original request of NTIA, I propose to air topics and have two comments: ccNSO/gNSO per each. 1. The IANA functions have been viewed historically as a set of interdependent technical functions and accordingly performed together by a single entity. In light of technology changes and market developments, should the IANA functions continue to be treated as interdependent? For example, does the coordination of the assignment of technical protocol parameters need to be done by the same entity that administers certain responsibilities associated with root zone management? Please provide specific information to support why or why not, taking into account security and stability issues. 2. The performance of the IANA functions often relies upon the policies and procedures developed by a variety of entities within the Internet technical community such as the IETF, the RIRs and ccTLD operators. Should the IANA functions contract include references to these entities, the policies they develop and instructions that the contractor follow the policies? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If yes, please provide language you believe accurately captures these relationships. 3. Cognizant of concerns previously raised by some governments and ccTLD operators and the need to ensure the stability of and security of the DNS, are there changes that could be made to how root zone management requests for ccTLDs are processed? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If yes, please provide specific suggestions. 4. Broad performance metrics and reporting are currently required under the contract. Are the current metrics and reporting requirements sufficient? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If not, what specific changes should be made? 5. Can process improvements or performance enhancements be made to the IANA functions contract to better reflect the needs of users of the IANA functions to improve the overall customer experience? Should mechanisms be employed to provide formalized user input and/or feedback, outreach and coordination with the users of the IANA functions? Is additional information related to the performance and administration of the IANA functions needed in the interest of more transparency? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If yes, please provide specific suggestions. 6. Should additional security considerations and/or enhancements be factored into requirements for the performance of the IANA functions? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If additional security considerations should be included, please provide specific suggestions. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 9:53 PM To: Andrei Kolesnikov Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: suggested topics for joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting tomorrow Thanks Andrei, good topic. Let's discuss during our working lunch. Even though the main topic for this is our meeting with the Board, I'm sure we can also find the time to refine the topics for our discussions with the GAC and the ccNSO. Stéphane Le 13 mars 2011 à 19:38, Andrei Kolesnikov a écrit : Yet another topic that might be interesting for discussion: should we exchange ideas regarding NTIA notice of inquiry on the IANA functions? Retirement of the tlds? --andrei From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 7:28 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org GNSO Subject: [council] Fwd: suggested topics for joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting tomorrow All, As it was necessary to provide the ccNSO with information on the topics we suggest we might discuss in advance, I have sent the following email to Chris Disspain. Thanks, Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date : 13 mars 2011 05:26:15 HNEC À : Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> Objet : suggested topics for joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting tomorrow Chris, The GNSO Council has put together the following list of questions for our joint meeting tomorrow. We look forward to meeting with the ccNSO. Stéphane - A short explanation of how the 2 Councils work. - What are the ccNSO currently working on, and which of these projects do you anticipate direct GNSO input/feedback to be useful (if any)? - Does the ccNSO see value in meeting with the GNSO Council and if so, how can we maximise that value? - There are big changes to the current ICANN landscape coming, with respect to new gTLDs, what would the ccNSO's position be on cc operators that plan to run gTLDs? - Is it likely the move from cc to more general purpose (eg. .CO, .ME, .TV) will accelerate?