RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Patrick.  The purpose of both of my responses was to provide
initial feedback as requested.  I look forward to your responses to my
questions.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Patrick Jones [mailto:patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:11 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
        
        
        Chuck,
        
        Thank you for the detailed questions. I am working on a
comprehensive response, but in the interim wanted to provide some
initial feedback. The Statement of Work was shared with the Council as a
draft, to solicit input from the Council as it was involved in the
development of the funnel process through the PDP. The intention of the
review is not to examine the creation of the Policy, but examine the
implementation and operation of the process. 
        
        I am happy to discuss this in the next available Council call or
in Mexico City.
        
        Patrick
        
        ------ Forwarded Message
        From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:05:08 -0800
        To: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>,
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Subject: RE: [council] Draft Statement of Work for Funnel Review
        
        I have a few more comments about this topic.
        
        1. Isn't the GNSO Council usually responsible for reviewing GNSO
policies?  That was certainly the case with the IRTP.  So why is that
not the case with regard to the RSEP?
        
        2. The first sentence of the last paragraph in the Summary of
the draft SoW says, "The review of the operation of the RSEP will allow
ICANN to ensure the process is meeting intended goals efficiently and
effectively."  It is my opinion that the problem with the RSEP is not
the process but rather implementation of the process that is not
"meeting intended goals efficiently and effectively". The three recent
examples I would cite are single character second level domain name
services proposed by DotCoop, DotMobi and VeriSign.
        
        3. In the section of the draft SoW titled Evaluation of Registry
Services Proposals, the fourth paragraph reads, "Once ICANN determines
that the request as submitted is complete, ICANN will notify the
requesting registry operator or sponsoring organization that the
15-calendar day review process has commenced. ICANN will conduct within
15 days a preliminary determination on whether the proposed service
raises significant security or stability issues or competition issues."
It is my opinion that this this not occur with VeriSign's single
character second level domain registry service proposal submitted in
June 2008.  If ICANN Staff believe that they were in compliance with
this provision, then it would be helpful to receive an explanation of
why they believe so.
        
        4. In the section of the draft SoW titled Tasks to be
Undertaken, item 2 says, "Deliver a report with observations and
recommendations to ICANN for consideration by ICANN, gTLD registries and
the GNSO Council. Those observations are expected to include: 
        
        o                    whether the RSEP is meeting its intended
purpose
        o                    whether RSEP is consistent with the
approved policy and implementation plan
        o                    whether the process is timely, efficient
and open in implementation
        o                    whether there is sufficient opportunity for
and realization of public input or comment on proposed registry service
requests
        o                    whether the process and outcomes are
predictable
        o                    whether there is overlap with the PDP
process
        o                    whether there is overlap between the
Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security
and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)"  
        This could be perceived as a way to work around the GNSO PDP.
Most of these issues are policy issues. On a different note, what is
meant by "overlap with the PDP process" and "overlap between the
Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) with the Security
and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)"?
         
        Chuck Gomes