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.
Ce contenu est uniquement disponible en
The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the “Process for Amending the IANA Naming Service Level Agreements”. We would like to express our appreciation to the CSC, PTI, and related support Staff for their efforts in assembling the provided document for comment.
In general, the RySG supports the document, we highlight the following as being notable improvements over the current version.
The RySG:
- Agrees that the updated document simplifies the structure of the process and adds clarity;
- Supports the addition of an automatic review process for the SLAs;
- Agrees with the improved process clarity provided by Section 2.4; and
- Supports the simplification in the description of gathering community feedback, while noting effectively no functional difference between the two processes.
We suggest some minor editorial clarifications, specifically:
- 3.1 has a phrase “considerations from PTI and ICANN’s budgeting and planning processes” which is ambiguous as written; i.e. “considerations from PTI, and ICANN’s budgeting and planning” or “considerations from PTI’s and ICANN’s budgeting and planning” (although they budget and plan separately);
While perhaps a seeming nit, this 3.1 is defining requirements for the SLA Change Recommendation, and thus clarity is required
- 3.3.1 should be edited to be clear that “do not require this step” refers to all of 3.3;
- 3.3.2 may or may not indicate an intention for multiple public sessions and would benefit from clarification;
- 3.5 is written as if the SLAs will be approved (see opening clause), however, approval is not required in all cases; thus, the sentence should be adjusted to accommodate for the scenario in which approval is not required;
- 2.2 would benefit from a serial comma after “resources” to make clear that “resources and time” are separate (not combined) factors; and
- 2.4 has a difficult typo: “they” should be “the”.
We look forward to the process being updated.
In general, the RySG supports the document and acknowledges notable improvements over the current version. It also suggests a few minor editorial clarifications to enhance clarity and consistency.