<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Alan,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Where is the Q&A found in the CWG proposal?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; CWG DT-F (cwg-dtf@icann.org)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not sure it really matters.<br>
<br>
Milton has identified a CWG requirement that has slipped through the cracks. The ICG should have directed a question to the NTIA about how this requirement would be satisfied.
<br>
<br>
My only point was that the ICANN/Versign proposal was on another unrelated subject and I used the Q/A to demonstrate (at least from my perspective) why is was orthogonal to the ICANN/Verisign proposal.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 29/09/2015 05:07 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have a higher level question: Is it appropriate for us to be referring to CWG proposal requirements that are implied in proposal Q&A?<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Alan Greenberg [<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"> mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mueller, Milton L; Gomes, Chuck; CWG DT-F (<a href="mailto:cwg-dtf@icann.org">cwg-dtf@icann.org</a>)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions<br>
<br>
Milton, you are correct that this requirement has not been satisfied. But the proposal is purely about the mechanism to have the NTI no longer authorizing changes at the moment of transition, and to do this with no coding changes in the RZ processes. I am attaching
a brief analysis of the proposal and its impact (it is couched in less technical terms since it was aimed at a more general audience).<br>
<br>
If there is any doubt that the proposal has this very limited intent, I am sure that David Conrad and/or someone from Verisign can confirm.<br>
<br>
The CWG requirement that you are referring to is alluded to in two of the Q&As that accompany the proposal.<br>
<br>
Q. Will there be a new agreement to perform the RZM function post the IANA stewardship transition?<br>
A. Verisign performs the RZM function today, including multiple daily publications of the root zone file, under the Cooperative Agreement with the Department of Commerce. It is anticipated that performance of the RZM function would be conducted by Verisign
under a new RZM agreement with ICANN once the RZM function obligations under the Cooperative Agreement are completed.
<br>
<br>
Q. How will this impact the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?<br>
A. The Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign will continue. Once the parallel testing for root zone management has proven capable of performance in the absence of the RZA / NTIA role and the IANA Stewardship transition implemented, NTIA and
Verisign will amend the Cooperative Agreement as appropriate. <br>
<br>
The second Q/A implies that at transition, the requirement for Verisign to adhere to PTI directives is implied.<br>
<br>
The first Q/A Implies that the Cooperative agreement will be replaced with a comparable agreement between ICANN and Verisign which would clearly include the needed requirement.<br>
<br>
So these two questions overlap and it is unclear which path will be followed, or perhaps implemented in sequence, first a change to the Cooperative Agreement and later a replacement of it.<br>
<br>
But regardless, it seems that the CWG requirement is contemplated prior to effecting transition.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 29/09/2015 02:59 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
<br>
Alan, Chuck<br>
I think the proposal does not meet one essential requirement of the DTF.<br>
We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO’s changes would be implemented.
<br>
As far as I can tell, that requirement is fudged in the ICANN-Verisign proposal.
<br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces@icann.org">cwg-dtf-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck; CWG DT-F (<a href="mailto:cwg-dtf@icann.org">cwg-dtf@icann.org</a>)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High<br>
<br>
To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group:<br>
The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as few changes at the same time as possible.
<br>
In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme. <br>
I must say that the proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making a relatively simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 29/09/2015 01:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
In case some of you fellow Design Team F members haven’t had time to look at this document, I wanted to call to your particular attention questions 1 & 2 for which feedback is requested from DT-F members. Feedback is requested before the CWG call this coming
Thursday.<br>
<br>
Alan – Because you led DT-F and carried a large part of the load, I think it would be especially helpful for you to provide your feedback. Because both questions relate to Verisign’s current role as Root Zone Maintainer, it is probably better if responses
come from others instead of me.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings<br>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 9:57 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> <br>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions<br>
<br>
Dear All,<br>
<br>
In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point
for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday.
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Marika<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>