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?