<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<font face="Calibri"> Hi,<br>
<br>
It would be good it there pages numbers. Maybe because I am using
libreoffice i did not see them. In my notes I use the page
numbers I added to my version. <br>
<br>
The suggestion of numbers paragraphs that was made on list, it is
a pretty good idea as well.<br>
<br>
Overall comment. Our proposal still seems somewhat disjoint.
That and the number of things that are still listed as TBD makes
it ever harder to suspend disbelief about making the deadline. We
have a lot of work to do yet.<br>
<br>
Some specific comments/questions below:<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 5</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h4 class="western" style="margin-top: 0in; font-style: normal;
line-height: 150%"> <font color="#00000a" face="Calibri">Overlap
or interdependencies between your IANA requirements and the
functions required by other customer communities</font></h4>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<font color="#00000a">What process is there for dealing with
possible future differences of opinion between operational
communities on those issues? Does something need to be
elaborated?</font><br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 9</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="margin-left: 0.5in; line-height: 150%; orphans: 2;
widows: 2; text-decoration: none"> <font style="font-size:
11pt" face="Calibri" size="2">Local laws applicable to ccTLDs,
or IDN ccTLDs, associated with a specific country or territory
are developed by the governments of those countries or
territories</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Is it worth mentioning that they are also only applicable within
those countries or territories?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 13</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.25in; line-height: 150%;
orphans: 0; widows: 0; text-decoration: none"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2">For most gTLDs
the language is: <i>Disputes arising under or in connection
with this Agreement that are not resolved pursuant to
Section 5.1, including requests for specific performance,
will be resolved through binding arbitration conducted
pursuant to the rules of the International Court of
Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. Any
arbitration will be in front of a single arbitrator, unless
(i) ICANN is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, or
operational sanctions, (ii) the parties agree in writing to
a greater number of arbitrators, or (iii) the dispute arises
under Section 7.6 or 7.7. In the case of clauses (i), (ii)
or (iii) in the preceding sentence, the arbitration will be
in front of three arbitrators with each party selecting one
arbitrator and the two selected arbitrators selecting the
third arbitrator.</i></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0in; line-height: 150%;
orphans: 0; widows: 0; text-decoration: none"> <font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.25in; line-height: 150%;
orphans: 0; widows: 0; text-decoration: none"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2">For ccTLDs the
language relating to this is usually a version of the
following: <i>Each party shall nominate one arbitrator, and
the two arbitrators so nominated shall, within 30 days of
the confirmation of their appointment, nominate the third
arbitrator, who will act as Chairman of the Arbitral
Tribunal.</i></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Does some form of this language belong in the bylaws as one of
appeals/redress mechanisms. Is this something that should be
discussed by CCWG?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 14</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.25in; line-height: 150%;
orphans: 2; widows: 2; text-decoration: none"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2">For gTLDs the
arbitration will be conducted in the English language and will
occur in Los Angeles County, California, USA</font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Given the international dispute resolution concerns, is this still
appropriate?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 17</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ol type="A">
<li>
<h4 class="western" style="margin-top: 0in; font-style:
normal; line-height: 150%"> <font color="#00000a"
face="Calibri">The elements of this proposal</font></h4>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Should the possibility of an SLA between ICANN and the the IFO be
include in the list?<br>
<br>
Even with a functional separation configuration defining an SLA,
or rather a Service Level Requirement, might be reasonable.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 18/19</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.4in;
line-height: 150%; orphans: 0; widows: 0; text-decoration: none">
<font style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2">While the
IANA Function Review will normally be scheduled based on a
regular 5 year rotation with other ICANN reviews, it may also
be initiated by a the Customer Standing Committee (CSC).</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> </blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
Is this the only way to trigger it? <br>
<br>
The latest suggestion from the DT-N short text was:<br>
<br>
“While the IANA Review Function will normally be scheduled based
on a regular 5 year rotation with other ICANN reviews, it may also
be initiated by a defined community process.”<br>
<br>
The 'community process' has not yet been agreed upon.<br>
<br>
I also note that Annex D (CT-N), includes the following:<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0in; line-height: 150%;
orphans: 2; widows: 2; text-decoration: none" lang="en-US"> <font
color="#000000" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt"
size="2">While the Periodic Review will normally be
scheduled based on a regular 5 year rotation with other
ICANN reviews. A Special Periodic Review may be also be
initiated by community action:</font></font></p>
<ul>
<li>
<p class="western" style="line-height: 150%; orphans: 2;
widows: 2; text-decoration: none" lang="en-US"> <font
color="#000000" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size:
11pt" size="2">Recommendation of the CSC and 1 SO</font></font></p>
</li>
<li>
<p class="western" style="line-height: 150%; orphans: 2;
widows: 2; text-decoration: none" lang="en-US"> <font
color="#000000" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size:
11pt" size="2">Recommendation of a combination of 3
AC/SO, including at least one SO and one AC in
agreement.</font></font></p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Unfortunately that text was not reproduced under the triggers
section (my fault). <br>
I also do not think it has been discussed in the full group yet.<br>
<br>
In any case this needs further discussion<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
<i>Page 24</i><br>
<br>
III.A.x. Regulatory and Legal Obligations<br>
<br>
Formatting error: it is listed under III.A.ix and does not have
its own header/number.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 24</i><br>
<br>
In a previous note this is a place I suggested listing --
iii.A.xi Separation Decision Mechanism (which is different from
DT-F which is separation operation requirements - which could
happen as either the result of a catastrophe or a decision.)<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Page 26</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h4 class="western" style="margin-top: 0in; font-style: normal;
line-height: 150%"> <font color="#00000a" face="Calibri">Operational
requirements to achieve continuity of service and possible new
service integration throughout the transition</font></h4>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Do any of these require Bylaws changes?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Annex A</i> - <br>
<br>
<br>
Does this need to also deal with possible RFC6791 Special-use
domain names issues?<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
<i>Annex A </i> </font>
<ol type="a">
<li>
<p style="line-height: 150%; orphans: 0; widows: 0;
text-decoration: none; page-break-after: avoid"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2"><font
color="#4f81bd"><b><font color="#000000">Redelegation and
Operation of the .INT TLD (NTIA IANA Functions
Contract: C.2.9.4)</font></b></font></font></p>
</li>
</ol>
<font face="Calibri"> NTIA could have decided to that at any point.
If the contract is replaced by transition mechanisms, will it
still be possible to <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right:
0.22in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: 150%; orphans: 0;
widows: 0; text-decoration: none" align="justify"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2"><font
color="#0b0b0b">Upon designation of a successor registry </font></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Do we need a process and triggers for such a process? Seems to me
we do. Otherwise are we are saying this stays with IANA for
evermore?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Annex D </i><br>
<br>
In general needs to be edited for general reference to IRT instead
of various forms of [Periodic] IANA Function Review. If indeed
IRT is the name we are settling on. Personally I am not sure the
name of the team should be used as the name of the review, but
can live with any name we wish to give it.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0in; line-height: 150%;
orphans: 2; widows: 2; text-decoration: none"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2"><b>What should
trigger reviews?</b></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<font size="2">As mentioned above this needs to be edited to
include the correct triggers for the Special IRT<b>.</b></font><br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Annex F</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0in; line-height: 150%;
orphans: 2; widows: 2; text-decoration: none" lang="en-US"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2">Overall,
responses on behalf of just 28 managers were received (see
Appendix B). Such a low level of response was judged to be an
insufficient a basis to provide a mandate for the inclusion of
an appeal mechanism in the CWG’s proposal</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
Was the fact that the opinions of those who did answer might be
ignored announced up front? Was there a threshold of responses
predefined for the survey? If not seems problematic to ignore the
results.<br>
<br>
Why is an appeals mechanism that is optional but was favored by 26
active ccTLDs not the right answer?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Annex I</i> - Does the CSC charter belong in the Bylaws?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Annex N</i> - If the IANA contract provisions that persist post
transition are not in a contract between ICANN and its IANA
affiliate, then were are they codified? Bylaws?<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
<i>Annex M<br>
</i></font><font face="Calibri"><i><br>
</i></font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Calibri">The NTIA has
contributed and opened avenues to resources (such as those from
NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technologies, a
part of the U.S. Department of Commerce in efforts surrounding
DNSSEC). Moreover as the Root Zone Administrator, they have been
the entity to ultimately approve the changes going forward.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
Who will be responsible for this going forward? <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-bottom:
0.14in; line-height: 115%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;
text-decoration: none"> <font style="font-size: 11pt"
face="Calibri" size="2"><b><span style="background: #ffff00">The
design
team does not fully agree on this recommendation. Although
no
one suggests any merger at this time, </span></b></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-bottom:
0.14in; line-height: 115%; orphans: 2; widows: 2;
text-decoration: none"><font style="font-size: 11pt"
face="Calibri" size="2"><b><span style="background: #ffff00">some
do not believe that there
are sufficient hard reasons to make it a “principle”.
Comments
are welcome on this issue.</span></b></font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
With relation to the issue of the Mutli-party organization, and do
we need to have an RZM separate form the IFO:<br>
<br>
I assume we are not thinking of Assigning the IFO to the RZM, so
really are we just asking if the RZM function will be subsumed
into the IFO function? Or would the two functions remain separate
but just both assigned to IANA? <br>
<br>
To what purpose?<br>
And isn't this issue out of scope at the moment? <br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"> <i>Appendix A</i><br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ul>
<li>
<p class="western" style="line-height: 100%; orphans: 0;
widows: 0; text-decoration: none" align="justify"> <font
style="font-size: 11pt" face="Calibri" size="2"><b>Security
Authorization and Management Policy </b></font></p>
</li>
</ul>
<p class="western" style="margin-left: 0in; line-height: 100%;
orphans: 0; widows: 0; text-decoration: none"> <font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri">... and other sections of the Appendix<br>
<br>
Some of the formatting is hard to follow – especially in regard to
subordinate clauses.<br>
<br>
Also who be responsible for the policy aspects of any possible
future changes to this process or to its technical details?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
That is about it for now<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17-Apr-15 17:58, Marika Konings
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D1574E93.4C036%25marika.konings@icann.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please find attached for your review the latest version of
the CWG-Stewardship Transition Proposal. Please note that it is
still very much work in progress as some key pieces are still
missing such as the information from the legal memo that is
forthcoming, outstanding work of the design teams (DT A) as well
as final language from ‘DT X’. However, we did already want to
give you an opportunity to review where we are at and as such we
would like to encourage you to instead of editing the document
line by line, to focus on whether there is information missing
or incorrect, the updated recommendations of some of the design
teams (e.g. DT M and N) as well as reviewing some of the changes
we have made for style and consistency purposes to the DT
recommendations. Note that thanks to Kim Davies a number of
clarifications have been made to section I and II. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We are still working on the annexes (focused on consistency
and readability) as well as formatting and numbering of the
overall document. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As we’ve moved quite some things around in section III to
follow a more logical order, there is a lot of redline in the
document which does not necessarily represent new or changed
content, but also content that has changed position. As such,
you will also find attached a clean version to facilitate your
review. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please share any comments you may have (preferably with a
reference to page number and section) with the mailing list by
Monday 23.59 UTC at the latest.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marika</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
        <tr>
                <td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
                        <a href="http://www.avast.com/">
                                <img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
                        </a>
                </td>
                <td>
                        <p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
                                This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
                                <br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
                        </p>
                </td>
        </tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>