Dnssec public comment: TCR model.

[Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Comments Comments are welcome on any aspect of the consultation, and
specifically on the following questions:

1. Is the current TCR model effectively performing its function of ensuring
trust in the KSK management process?

       Respondent: I have seen no adverse comments re: function

2. Is the current size of the TCR pool appropriate to ensure sufficient
participation in the ceremonies, while not overburdening the availability
of specific volunteers?

       Response: TCR s and backup arrangements seem adequate...in numbers .

3. Should there be a minimum level of participation required of a TCR in
order to be considered to be successfully discharging their duties?

       Response: if anything, the pool could be availed of some on-going
tutorial or root zone security issues...and development process. This could
be a newsletter to the pool.

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 there be a process to renew the pool of TCRs, such as using term
limits or another rotation mechanism?

       Responding: May be a good idea to rotate between TCR s and the
backup TCR s list even in an ad hoc manner.

5. The current model does not compensate TCRs for their services in order
to ensure their independence from ICANN.

a. Should the model of TCRs paying the costs of their participation be
retained?

       Respondent: I think there is an argument for full expense for TCR s
coming from one single source/ budget...and it can be categorized as an
operational cost after all.

b. Would some form of compensation to offset the expenses incurred by the
TCRs detract from their independence in performing the role?

       Response: My view is that It probably will not. ICANN for example
has an ombudsman...so I see TCR s as perhaps similar functionality.

c. If you support compensating TCRs for their expenses, are there
requirements or limitations on whom the funding organization should be

       Response : The funding organization should not be ICANN...BUT AN
INTERNATIONAL charity/ funding agency example: UNESCO or other...but
certainly outside of ICANN .

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235