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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Alan,

I think you made my point much better than I did:  ". .  the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this (amending or replacing the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement). That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk . . . the proposal is addressing a completely different issue . . . "

Part of our problem is the way the ICG question is worded:  " the ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the Verisign/ICANN proposal (available athttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf) for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal. "

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:49 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L; Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions

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

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship