RE: [council] Fwd: suggested topics for joint ccNSO/GNSO Council meeting tomorrow

["Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei@xxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 9:53 PM
To: Andrei Kolesnikov
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 7:28 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx>

Date : 13 mars 2011 05:26:15 HNEC

À : Chris Disspain <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>

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?