Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Contenido disponible solo en los siguientes idiomas
Submissions for this Proceeding
Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2) Initial Report
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
This statement, made in a personal capacity, welcomes the work of the IFR2.
However, it focuses on the IANA Intellectual Property Registration (IPR) Agreements, which, unlike the IANA Functions Review (IFR) and Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), are not subject to ICANN’s Organisational Review Processes or given the same level of scrutiny. For example, the process for appointing Community Coordination Group (CCG) members, as defined in ...
Submission Summary:
The ccNSO Council is very pleased to note that the IFR2 team has found that PTI operates in a reliable and efficient manner, and serves the needs of the IANA Naming Function customers. The Council appreciates all the findings in the report and fully supports all recommendations as included in the Report. The council does have comments regarding the IFRT2 Finding 3 Frequency of Reviews and regarding Incidental Finding 4: Ombuds.
<...Submission Summary:
In general the CSC supports the recommendations contained in the Initial Report, and specifically Recommendation 4 and Incidental Finding 4 . With respect to Incidental Finding 3, the CSC notes that the CSC and PTI are jointly updating the SLA amendment procedure, which after adoption, would allow PTI and the CSC to identify and address the kind of exceptions systematically
Submission Summary:
The RrSG appreciates the work of the Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2) and the opportunity to comment on the Initial Report. We support the findings of the IFRT2 that PTI “operates reliably, efficiently, and serves the needs of IANA Naming Function customers” and agree that some clarifications to the IANA Naming Functions Contract can prove beneficial. The RrSG supports the IFRT2 Findings and Incidental Findings.
Submission Summary:
NCSG supports all four recommendations and in particular, strongly supports the principles behind Recommendations 3 (Contract Amendment Transparency) and 4 (Frequency of Reviews).
Submission Summary:
The RySG supports each of the recommendations contained therein, as we believe they will promote transparency and improve efficiencies going forward. The RySG also supports the IFR’s inclusion of Incidental Findings.
Submission Summary:
This submission generally supports the recommendations of the Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT2) Initial Report. The recommendations regarding the removal of specific DNSSEC policy details from the IANA Naming Function Contract and the clear identification of the relevant policy authority are in line with good contract management and adaptability. The emphasis on enhancing the transparency and accessibility of contract amendments ...
Submission Summary:
I wish ICANN to formally conduct a review of alternative locations for the HSM function outside of the USA, suggesting ICANN Geneva or ICANN Singapore as possible locations.
My request is for a public process including stakeholder review, community discussion and some sense of decision making in the public interest.