That is correct Andrew. The guidebook kicks in before a delegation ever gets to the IANA processes. To my knowledge the GNSO has never developed any policies that relate directly to IANA services. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 10:55 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3 On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 01:50:22PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Andrew's questions/suggestion seem very good to me. With regard to the GNSO though, to date it hasn't really dealt with policy regarding the root.
I think what you mean is that the GNSO hasn't been involved in the policies around technology to be used with the root zone, right? That is, I guess the GNSO was involved in the development of the Applicant Guide Book for the new gTLDs, and that entire process was, assuredly, about the policy for what went in the root. But the decision around (say) DNSSEC was different. I confess I am made slightly nervous about some of this, because it's pretty clear that a significant number of participants in the SOs and ACs are not exactly proficient in details of technical operations. In my experience, such a lack of relevant experience never seems to disqualify anyone from having an opinion about how the technology should be operated, and I worry about that being a problem here. Perhaps that suggests that ICANN will need to develop a technical advisory track of some kind (or maybe the SSAC will become more important). I nevertheless think that the policy part needs to live inside of ICANN, despite any misgivings I might have about how well technical policy may be done at first. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship