You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 7 Next »

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

09 August 2019

COMMENT


Hide the information below, please click here 

FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 




FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.




DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

Draft submitted by Alan Greenberg on 21 July 2019:

This evolution of the governance of the Root Server System is arguably one of the most significant, if not the most significant, processes in the history of ICANN.

The RSSAC and those who contributed to RSSAC037 are to be congratulated as is the ICANN Board for its response currently under discussion.

The ALAC strongly supports the overall proposal and appreciates the opportunity to comment on it.

The ALAC offers two specific comments:

  • Section 4 of RSSAC037 discusses who the stakeholders of the RSS are. Absent from this list is the explicit mention of USERS (both individual as represented by At-Large and the rest of the users who rely on the RSS). Without those users, there would be no need for the RSS. The ultimate ICANN model must encompass this and users should be explicitly represented on the RGB (Root Server System Governance Board).
  • The financial aspects of this proposal will be key to its success. At a time when ICANN’s budgets are being subjected to significant constraint, the Concept Model will without doubt have a high and ongoing cost. It is unclear where the Board currently visualizes these funds will come from. Once cost estimates are established, there should be a study of possible sustainable funding options. As important as the RSS is, the new funding must not come at great cost to other Community and non-DNS industry based activity support by ICANN org.

  • No labels