[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions

[Alan Greenberg]

There is no doubt that the requirement to amend or replace the 
RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement to ensure that post-transition, 
Verisign will be oblidged to implement changes passed on by IANA. But 
the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this . That 
proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals 
at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk, and 
specifically not require any coding changes into the process (at that 
point in time).

The Q&A that accompanied the proposal did say that there would need 
to be changes to the Cooperative Agreement but did not go into detail.

The requirement is not "fudged" in the proposal, because the proposal 
is addressing a completely different issue. Admittedly, the proposal 
did lack clarity on what it was trying to achieve.

Alan



At 30/09/2015 01:55 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, I 
>think the ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one 
>essential requirement of the DTF.
>We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA 
>Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented.
>As far as I  can tell, that requirement is fudged in the 
>ICANN-Verisign proposal. We have no idea what kind of an agreement, 
>if any, would exist between Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls 
>away, nor do we have a more generic notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate.
>
>--MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM
> > To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG
> > Questions
> >
> > Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal:
> >
> > To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group:
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> > >Dear All,
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Marika
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship