Comments on the current TCR model

[Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Drear Ms/Mr,

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

In general I believe yes but as of this consultation evidences, some
aspects need to be reviewed on a regular basis so as to keep the
process efficient and to adapt it to a constantly changing Internet
ecosystem.

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?

Not sure about it... as a backup crypto-officer I've not yet attended
any ceremony but it appears to be a good idea to strength the the task
by including (for example) at least 1 backup officer in each ceremony.
That way, the backup officers get more involved in the process and
have practical experience on it in case they need to become officers.
That may be combined with a rotation methodology where each ceremony)
some officers become backup and some backup become officers. Round
Robin might be a good algorithm.

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

MMmmmm, yep. It may be a good idea to have the officers to attend at
least one ceremony per year (or to have a clear, and present
justification for not attending).

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?
See answer to #2. Plus, a method in case of one leaving the task, a
backup might become titular and a process to have a new backup should
be activated.

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

Personally I do not agree that compensation implies dependence in this
case... As the name says TCRs are and should be trusted... so I
believe, on that basis, there is no relation between the TCR and where
the fundings for completing the task comes from.

a.
Should the model of TCRs paying the costs of their participation be retained?
I strongly believe that the answer to this is NO. That implies (and
implied all this time this model has been running) a disadvantage
between US based TCRs and the rest. The explanation is obvious and in
case not, one simple fact is that TCRs are personal commitments more
than company ones... and some TCRs may not pay for nor expense to
complete the task.

b.
Would some form of compensation to offset the expenses incurred by the
TCRs detract from their independence in performing the ro le?
Go back to answer #5... my answer is NO: TCR commitment * attending
compensation = 0

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

As the interest of this model working resides on the Internet
community, in ICANN itself and in all Internet related organizations
(or at lest it should be), I believe it doest care where the fund come
from... what I suggest is for ICANN to have a group (existent one or
new, within ICANN or out of ICANN) to receive that fundings and
compensate TCR's flight, hotel, expenses, any of them, some of them or
all of them in case needed so as to guarantee that TCRs commitment and
task could be done when needed.