Review comments on TLG Review Report

[Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>]

[Note: Although I am the current IETF Liaison to the ICANN, these
comments are my own, based on my own observations, and are not
official views of any organization.]

First, I'd like to add my support to the main conclusion of the
report. I believe that the TLG, as currently constructed, is a
reflection of history and today does not serve ICANN well. I agree
that the TLG should be disbanded for the reasons given.

I believe that experience shows that grouping together "technical"
bodies into a single structure with a goal of somehow providing input
into ICANN (or the ICANN board) does not work effectively. Bodies that
have expertise in areas of direct concern to ICANN should work with
ICANN directly, in whatever manner makes sense for the respective
bodies. For each of the individual organizations that comprise the
TLG, ICANN should work out directly with those organizations (i.e., on
a one-on-one basis) how best they should interact and provide input to
ICANN, in order to execute ICANN's mission.

The report also provides some additional partial measures
(recommendations 3-6), in the event the main recommendation cannot be
carried out. I disagree with their characterization as
"recommendations". It would be more accurate to call them "partial
measures" or something like that. I will not comment on these partial
measures directly, as I believe that recommendation 1 should be
pursued.

I would encourage the report to better document the IAB/IETF history
with the TLG in more detail. Although the IAB has participated in the
TLG in the past, and are still listed as being TLG members in the
bylaws, they effectively stopped participating back in March of 2005
due to lack of actual activity.
(http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/iabmins.2005-03-07.txt).

Thomas Narten