Comments on the current TCR model

["Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosmarcelomartinez@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

My opinion is a tentative 'yes'. However, I believe this critical matter
would merit further analysis, perhaps in the form of one or a set of
surveys presented to different stakeholder groups, in order to better
gauge current awareness about and trust in the signed root.

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?

Yes, but by a narrow margin. Ceremonies are currently razor-thinly
attended by  TCR's, usually one TCR above minimum.

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

Yes, TCRs should attend at least one ceremony per year.

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. However, no rotation mechanism should cause all TCRs to be rotated
at the same time.

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. I believe this is placing a huge burden on effective participation
and placing limits on diversity, where TCRs residing within the US are
at an advantage. This would be specially hard for TCRs coming from
regions like Africa, Southeast Asia and some countries in Latin America.

While I understand the original motivations behind this model of
participation, and I believe it served a purpose for the first few
ceremonies, I also believe this model needs to be reviewed.

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

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples where parties sometimes
pay for services that effectively work against them.

Moreover, if some form of compensation of expenses is offered, it would
be possible for ICANN to expect further commitment from the TCRs, for
example, filling out a survey or writing a short report with his or her
views on each ceremony.

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

I do believe that the root zone operator organization should not be
financing TCRs or any other aspect of the KSK ceremony for that matter.
Other than that there could be other conflicts, like involved equipment
manufacturers or the datacenter facility operator.