DENIC's comments on the Draft RZERC Charter

[Peter Koch <pk@xxxxxxxx>]

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft RZERC charter
as of 10 June 2016.

Items 1152-1157 of the ICG stewardship proposal are recommended - if not
mandatory - reading.  We would like to suggest adding respective background
and/or reference to the charter for the benefit of future RZERC members as 
well as future members of the body to be advised.  This information would 
replace the
first charter section. Especially, the term 'architecture and operation of
the root zone' ought to be clarified in scope.  The intuitive reading
would suggest a significant overlap with RSSAC's responsibilities.

Sections (I) and (II) of the draft charter are very close, but provide slightly
different information. Section (I) can be read to mean that RZERC is
to review "proposed architectural and operational changes", but can also
originate such proposals.  In the former case, it remains open who is
able to make such proposals and what procedure to follow.
Section (II) suggests that RZERC "will consider issues raised to the Committee 
to identify any potential security, stability or resiliency risks to the 
architecture and operation of the root zone", independent of any
proposed or pending change to either system.  The phrase "raised to the 
Committee"
does not specify the entities competent to invoke RZERC on such matters.

   o Is RZERC supposed to have the right of initiative?
   o Is there any entity other than the ICANN Board or the Committee
     itself entitled to address or invoke RZERC?
   o Is a process supposed to exist for proposals for "architectural and 
operational changes"?

Regarding any potential RfP for the RZM, either section would benefit
from a disambiguation of the "if needed" clause, which could be read
as RZERC's involvement being subject to the discretion of the ICANN Board
rather than being careful not to actively suggest an RfP.  In any case,
since the then current RZM will be represented on the Committee, this
representative should be explicitly excluded from the consensus building.

Understanding that section (III) on "composition" is adopted from the ICG
proposal, but also recognizing their respective footnote, as well as the
final sentence of this section, it would appear that the selection of
the representative could be left to any and all delegating entities
rather than asking for a Chair's participation in some cases.

Regarding sections (IV) thru (VI), given that decisions can be made
outside of meetings, we would like to suggest the deliberations and results
to be made public in the same way as meeting recordings, with
the security considerations applied accordingly. 

Kind regards,
   Peter Koch, DENIC eG