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

[Alan Greenberg]

Chuck, you are correct, I did not explicitly address their question.

The Verisign/ICANN proposal addresses ONLY 1150, Section 1.

1150, Section 2 has not, to our knowledge been addressed, and this 
can be done only by the NTIA.

1150, Section 3 is a recommendation for work to be carried out 
post-transition. [It is not clear how we can lock this in. It needs discussion]

Alan


At 30/09/2015 04:27 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>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