Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

That said, we fully support the Final Report of the Delegation, Re-delegation and Retirement Working Group of the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-report-drd-wg-17feb11-en.pdfImage Removed) which recommends: “...as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes the development of a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines and procedures relating to the delegation and re- delegation of ccTLDs.

...

Furthermore, while ICANN is yet to fully realize its potential as a bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development organization, we envisage a time when its role in the process for root zone management as defined in (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/CurrentProcessFlow.pdfImage Removed) might be expanded to encompass the role of the Administrator, in addition to its current role as the IANA Functions Operator, provided that ICANN has established a process for the role of the Administrator that is accountable, transparent and serves the global public interest.

...

We therefore suggest an out of contract continuous self-appraisal process with mid-point review of improvements using the robust multi-stakeholder review process used in ICANN Reviews. This multi- stakeholder model can be utilized, to provide a framework to analyze the issues requiring improvement and create an environment for making consistent and predictable decision, as illustrated in the Final Report of the Delegation, Re-delegation and Retirement Working Group of the ccNSO. (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-report-drd-wg-17feb11-en.pdfImage Removed)

This improvement process is directly related to our answer in Question 3, whereby the transparency of the IANA Functions Operator in the processing of the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs should be improved as the decisions taken by IANA directly affect the local Internet community stakeholders governed by the ccTLD.

...

The IANA function needs to develop in-built contingency and fallback planning. An audit must be made clear of how information is stored, where it’s stored, and how it is verifiable. We suggest the establishing of emergency infrastructure Satellite phone number hotlines and an audit as to who has, who has not, who does and who does not in an emergency situation hitherto unseen.Today, the Internet’s Domain Name System is no less than a world-wide critical infrastructure.