Comments on TCR model

[Andy Linton <asjl@xxxxxxxx>]

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?

Yes.

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?

There has never been an issue with a ceremony failing to happen because
enough volunteers
were not available. The recommended number of TCRs is four even though
three is sufficient.
This allows for problems with travel and technical issues during the
ceremony. But there have
been occasions when it was difficult primarily due to problems with funding
travel.

So the pool size is probably OK if the issue of travel costs is resolved.

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

Participation at least once a year otherwise extra load is put on the other
TCRs.

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?

Yes, a process which allows rotation during the lifetime of the KSK would
remove
the risk of TCRs becoming complacent in their view of the process. Any
process of change needs to allow the TCRs to trust each other as well as
have the trust of the community and there needs to be a rollover of trust
when KSKs change as well. We have yet to deal with that issue.

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?

No. Payment for the work should not be made but TCRs should have the cost
of travel and accomodation covered by the community. At present, particular
organisations fund volunteers. Over half the TLDs are now signed and the
whole community should bear the cost. ICANN collects revenue from most of
the TLDs and should cover these costs. If there is a perceived issue of the
impartiality of TCRs then some other body could administer the funding,
e.g. ISOC but ICANN
should cover the cost.

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

ICANN covers costs and actually pays for financial auditors and their
independance is not questionned.
I find it insulting that there is an implication that the integrity of the
TCRs would be compromised
by ICANN paying for travel costs to a relatively inexpensive hotel close to
LA airport. This trip is not
a perquisite for me - it's a long 12 - 14 hour flight for up to two days of
work and a 12 - 14 hour return trip.


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

I believe this should be ICANN's job.