Comments on DRDWG Issue Analysis Report

[Yuri Demchenko <demch@xxxxxxxxx>]

The DRDWG have done a great job collecting all this information and 
presenting it in the "Issue Analysis Report"
Below are comments on questions specified in the call for comments.

Q1: Is the methodology developed and employed adequate for the purposes 
of the DRDWG?
Comment 1: It is simple but seems to be adequate. The balance is found 
to present information in a neutral unbiased way.
Q2: Do the policy statements identified provide an adequate baseline to
evaluate the actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to 
delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDs?
Comment 2: Yes. The 3 "Policy StatementS" are identified:
* RFC1591
* ICP1
* GAC Principles 2000 and 2005

In the report there is a good analysis and reference to RFC1591 and 
ICP1, but there is no summary and analysis what impact did it make on 
the IANA and ICANN decision and practice.
Q3: Are there other policy statements which are applicable to the work 
of the DRDWG? Should they be included in the baseline?
Comment 3: Nothing can be advised, however see previous comment.

Q4: Does the documentation identified provide an adequate representation 
of the actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to 
delegation, redelegation and retirement of ccTLDs?
Comment 4: Yes.

Q5: Should other cases be included for analyses?

Comment 5: No comments.

Q6: Is there other documentation which is applicable to the work of the
DRDWG which should be analyzed?

Comment 6: For current report, at this stage no other documents can be 
recommended.
However, it is possible, when ccNSO moves to new policies development, 
other documents external to ICANN/IANA/GAC should be analysed, e.g. IGF, 
ITU-T or ISO, EU documents, to make further ICANN/IANA policies 
consistent with other related developments.
Q7: Was the methodology properly applied to the cases?

Comment 7: Yes. As mentioned in Comment 1, information provided 
adequately sufficient and in a form suitable for further analysis and 
decisions.

Best Regards,

Yuri Demchenko
Consultant to the Fund of Internet Development (Russia)
.SU PDP Project