Comments on TCR Review

[Jim Reid <jim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I write these comments in a personal capacity.

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

Yes. However I think there needs to be more transparency on the selection and 
removal of the TCRs. Everyone should have confidence in the mechanisms used to 
choose TCRs and satisfy themselves that these procedures used are fair, 
non-discriminatory and that the chosen candidates are broadly representative of 
Internet stakeholders.

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. It seems about right. There are probably more TCRs than strictly necessary 
but this extra capacity allows a wide safety margin for unplanned eventualities 
like last-minute travel problems or changes to work/family commitments.

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. I am not sure what that threshold should be though, presumably attendance 
at X out of Y cerermonies.

Most Internet organisations will have something in their bye-laws which sets 
out these terms for their board members. Something comparable could apply to 
TCRs. It would also be advisable to make provision for forced removal of a TCR, 
for instance if they act in a way which is incompatible with their TCR duties. 
The bye-laws for board member removal may be a suitable guide here.

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. It's absolutely essential. Staggered term limits are probably the best way 
of achieving this. It must be done in a way which ensures robustness and 
stability while also allowing a healthy turnover of the TCR membership. That 
must be coupled to an open and transparent selection/appointment procedure. 
TCRs must be rotated regularly, say with staggered term limits of 5-7 years.

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. Though it should not be completely abandoned. If a TCR is able to have the 
costs of their participation covered by their employer or another third party, 
that is fine and it should continue.

However that model artificially constrains the pool of potential candidates for 
this important role. Some means of funding has to be found for TCRs who cannot 
afford or justify the costs of participation. This is essential to ensuring the 
widest choice of TCRs. It cannot be acceptable to reject a good TCR because of 
a lack of funding to cover their out of pocket expenses or to only choose TCRs 
from amongst those who have already arranged funding support for that role.

If ICANN wants the widest range of TCRs, it must find ways of funding the 
expenses of TCRs who are unable to get that financial support elsewhere.

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

No. The idea is absurd and quite frankly insulting. TCRs get chosen because 
they are trusted! It is just not credible that their independence or reputation 
could be called into question because they received compensation for their 
expenses. Anyone who might be influenced in that way should not be able to get 
appointed anyway. Though it's hard to see how expenses-only compensation for a 
TCR could somehow compromise the integrity of a key-signing ceremony or the 
independence of the TCR.

There are plenty of examples where organisations and people do independent work 
on behalf of ICANN and get paid for their efforts and/or expenses. There is no 
reason why TCRs would be any different from that long established practice.

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

TCRs should be able to be compensated for reasonable out of pocket expenses for 
travel and subsistence at a level that's in line with industry norms. They 
should not be paid for their time.

It is important though there is no one source of funding because that becomes a 
single point of failure. I think a hybrid model might work well. Some TCRs 
could be supported by their employer. Others might have their expenses paid by 
ICANN (or some other body) on a case by case basis. In short, if a TCR asks for 
their travel expenses, that should be met somehow.