[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Alan Greenberg]

Milton, you raise an interesting issue, although 
perhaps not the one you thought you were raising. 
It is one we missed during the initial review of 
this charter. Among other things, the name of the 
group is incorrect. Although it is responsible 
for overseeing the architecture of the Root Zone, 
it is also responsible for significant 
operational changes in regard to all IANA 
functions (something that was omitted from 
earlier versions of the charter, which also led 
to the incorrect name). This is in line with the 
NTIA approval function it partially replaces 
(lesser changes no longer needing approval at all) and with the CWG report.

IANA Functions Evolution Review Committee is 
probably a more apt name, even though it is a weak-sounding acronym - IFERC.

You are correct regarding the RZM, although I 
think the generic conflict statement covers the 
issue, given that the people on the group are not 
likely to be overwhelmed by the RZM delegate.

Alan

At 08/05/2016 11:37 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>Two important observations I would make:
>
>1.       It is clear that whoever drafted the 
>RZERC charter has reverted to the legacy mindset 
>of a single IANA Functions Operator for names, 
>numbers and protocols. The composition of the 
>group, for example, does not distinguish between 
>the IFO for names and the IFO for protocols and 
>numbers.  Let me remind everyone that the Root 
>Zone (RZ) that ICANN will contract for 
>management of and which this RZERC will consider 
>is a NAMES function only. Therefore it is 
>unclear to me why ASO is included on this body 
>and the management of numbers “root” has 
>very little if any connection to the architecture and operation of the RZM.
>
>2.       Another issue that seems to be 
>overlooked is that going forward, RZM will be a 
>paid contractor of ICANN, therefore the 
>incumbent RZM might be considered to have a 
>conflict of interest in RZERC consultations with 
>ICANN about the RZM contract terms and 
>conditions. On the other hand, we certainly do 
>want the incumbent RZM to be a part of this 
>committee because of the operational knowledge 
>it would bring to bear. So their role should be 
>circumscribed appropriately; e.g., the incumbent 
>RZM contractor should not chair the committee 
>and any definition of “consensus” should not 
>allow an incumbent RZM to block recommendations 
>pertaining to its own role or contract.
>
>A not-so important but funny observation: 
>Seun’s modifications referred to “expenses 
>incurred in the curse of carrying out their services”
>
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
>Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
>
>Dear all,
>Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits.
>Regards
>
>On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji 
><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part)
>Regards
>Sent from my LG G4
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803"
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
>Dear Co-Chairs/all,
>Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I 
>probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
>Just a few clarification question/comments:
>- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the 
>charter does not seem to include description.
>
>
>It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
>
>
>
>- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and 
>don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the 
>ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
>
>
>The name is new. The committee is described in 
>paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
>
>
>
>- I note that review of charter every 5 years is 
>indicated, but there seem to be no room to 
>modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
>
>
>The 5 years is a mandatory review.
>
>
>
>- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
>
>
>There is similarly no process for formally 
>naming them. It is up to the appointing body 
>(they all come from somewhere specific).
>
>
>
>- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going 
>to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
>
>
>ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can 
>act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
>
>
>
>- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
>
>
>It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory 
>Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the 
>Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of 
>approving substantive changes in the RZ 
>architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
>
>
>
>- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
>
>
>To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
>
>
>
>- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly 
>indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
>
>
>They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
>
>
>
>- What will be the connection between RZERC and 
>PTI board (since they will be more closer to 
>IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it 
>seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
>
>
>No connection. The PTI Board oversees the 
>physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, 
>replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as 
>per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports.
>Alan
>
>
>
>Regards
>Sent from my LG G4
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" 
><<mailto:Fuhr at etno.eu>Fuhr at etno.eu> wrote:
>Dear CWG,
>
>Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. 
>We would like to receive your comments at 17 May 
>at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). 
>We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 
>may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
>
>Best regards,
>Jonathan and Lise
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Seun Ojedeji,
>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>Mobile: +2348035233535
>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160508/4e7e002c/attachment.html>