ページ履歴

For more information about this PC, please click here

Toggle Cloak

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

...

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

Background

The Affirmation of Commitment describes the Internet as a transformative technology that empowers people around the globe, spurs innovation, facilitates trade and commerce, and enables the free and unfettered flow of information[1]. One of the elements of the Internet's success is a highly decentralized network that enables and encourages decision-making at a local level. Notwithstanding this decentralization, global technical coordination of the Internet's underlying infrastructure - the Domain Name System[2] (DNS) - is required to ensure interoperability[3].

...

The At Large Community recognizes the role and significance that the DNS plays in ensuring interoperability. We recognize the importance of DNSSEC in the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet in the root zone and the subsequent deployment in DNS Infrastructure. Noting that at the time this statement was written there were 427 TLDs in the root zone of which 235 are signed and that 229 have trust anchors published in the DS records in the root zone whilst 4 TLDs have trust anchors published in the ISC DLV Repository, we hope that in time more TLDs will move towards having trust anchors published.

 The The Root Zone Key Signing Ceremony points to one of ICANN’s important functions of preserving accountability and transparency in the manner in which it conducts its DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies.

...

The Abbreviation Draft of the Key Signing Ceremony Annotated Scripts, which provides a permanent trusted record of the Ceremony, does not include a definition for "EW" when these appear to be sometimes the largest number of category of people at the Ceremony. The Key Signing Ceremony Annotates Annotated Scripts do not clearly state that whether there are no other participants (including Camera person) present apart from those listed.

...

There are two different views on this. The first view is that the current size of the TCR pool is sufficient. The second view suggests is that the current size needs to be expanded to cater for unforeseeable unforeseen circumstances (includes but is not limited to terrorist attacks, flight disruptions, state of emergency, civil war, etc) that could render all a majority of the 21 TCRs incapable from attending unable to attend to their responsibilities. The possibility of having signing at the same time in either the same country or different countries or frequency of signing could also exhaust reserves leading to overburdening these volunteers. There might be some merit in expanding the pool and retaining the TCRs whilst rotating them from within the pool of candidate TCRs.

 3.     Should there be a minimum level of participation required of a TCR in order to be considered to be successfully discharging their duties?No comment

The community believes that TCRs should meet the existing criteria merited of what would comprise a responsible TCR. TCRs should actively engage by writing reports which are made public. Minimum participation should include, attendance, engagement, carrying out responsibilities, writing full and thorough reports and listing concerns if any.

 4.     There is no standard provision to refresh the list of TCRs except when they are replaced due to inability to effectively perform their function. Should Should there be a process to renew the pool of TCRs, such as using term limits or another rotation mechanism? 

There are two views on this matter. The first view is that the existing pool and their indefinite terms are sufficient and that the 21 TCRs are more than enough to meet possible contingencies that may arise. That there is no need for process to renew the pool neither of TCRs nor to use term limits or introduce a rotation mechanism. 

The other view is that there is a need for term limits as the original TCR mechanism is silent on the term. Rotation would protect against potential capture. There are Given the Internet reaches an estimated 2.6 billion internet users should indicate that there are at least sufficient persons in the world who could meet the criteria for selection. Where users all over the world, there should be enough candidates able to meet the criteria of being a TCR. The number of candidate or backup TCRs can also be increased. Regardless, where there is an assumption of indefinite service as a TCR, there should be a constant requirement to disclose any and all potential conflicts of interest to disable the risk of “capture” by any stakeholder or interest.  

...

There are two divergent views in relation to this. The first view holds that the current model where TCRs pay the costs should be retained. TCRs should be cost-neutral for those not supported by firms or other entities should suffice.  To   To create another source of travel funds for TCRs is poor and unwarranted.

The second view acknowledges the financial burden placed on TCRs. Although TCRs are volunteers, a system should be set in place that guarantees independence yet allows them to carry out their duty. A fund should be managed externally that is independent that can cater for the expenses of the TCRs.There should be limitations on those who can contribute to this fund. Any funds or gifts being awarded to the TCR should be promptly and formally disclosed through appropriate avenues. One of the suggestions for possible funding model is where ICANN sets up the fund as in the case of the Office of the Independent Objector (IO) where ICANN does not interfere with the decisions of the (IO).

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

Background

...