Hello Stephanie,

Thanks for this summary, kindly find a few comments inset

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Duchesneau, Stephanie <Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us> wrote:

Frequency: Some comments called for reviews to be carried out more frequently. We generally feel that a review carried out every year or every other year (as called for by the comments) would be too frequent. However, we are open to suggestions made that a recommendation for the frequency of the regular reviews could be deferred to completion of the first review.

It think review frequency should go inline with the contract term, which i understand to be 2 years initial and 5years subsequently (ofcourse starting the review process few month before contract expiry needs to be defined and i think between 3 and 6months may be ideal considering how long the process could be).

Outcomes of IFR: Some comments called for the outcomes of the IFR to be explicitly stated. While we believe that these should not be prescribed, the creation of a SCWG is identified as one possible outcome. We would be open to creating an inventory of other possible outcomes but would not want this work to confine the Review Team.

If i get the above correctly; there won't be SCWG unless its triggered by IFRT as a result of the periodic review. I agree with that being one of the outcome of IFRT.

Appointment of the ccTLD Members: One comment called for the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to be appointed by the ccNSO. We believe that the ccNSO is in the best position to appoint this representative and to communicate with all ccTLD operators about the process. We support clarifying this in the draft comment.

+1 on this

Scope of IFRT: One comment requested clarification that this applies only to the Naming Functions. It is the intention that the IFRT will apply only to the Naming Functions. We will ensure that this is clarified in current drafts.

++1 on this as well

Details Around Separation Review: Several comments called for more detail to be inputted about the Separation Review. We note that significant work has been carried out since the Draft Proposal to further define the separation process/mechanism (the SCWG). These processes encompass some of the sub-recommendations with respect to separation (e.g. community consultation)

I particularly agree with the idea of ensuring members of SCWG are drawn from the community with the same composition of IFRT but not composed of any member of IFRT.

Home of IFRT: Some comments raised concerns about the possibility of the IFRT sitting inside PTI and/or supported by PTI. The intent of DT-N was to have the IFRT exist within ICANN and to be defined in the ICANN Bylaws. We will make this clearer in the current draft. We will also clarify that ICANN will provide secretariat and other support services for the IFRT.

+1 on the home of IFRT as well. That said, i think it needs to be clear that IFRT is NOT going to be standing. While the members can be elected and known, they should ONLY be active when there is either a trigger as a result of CSC's escalation process OR the periodic review. So i won't expect IFRT to be conducting monthly meetings for instance, neither will i expect them to be making any enquiries about PTI performance unless its in the review period(or in a triggered phase). It may also be good to consider rotating IFRT members by review period.

Regards

Stephanie

Stephanie Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

The key to understanding is humility - my view !