<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Dear all, </div><div><br></div><div>Following the call today, Marika and I have reviewed the responses to the ICG Questions and prepared a redline and clean version for your review. We received some text from Alan Greenberg for the RZM questions and some text from Donna Austin for the .ARPA/CSC question. To summarize our edits, please refer to the notes from the call:</div><div><br></div><div><b style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 10.5px;"><i>3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses</i></b></div><div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the document on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve substantial changes. So the answer includes, community consultation, expert consultation, and Board approval. Refer to paragraph 155 in the CWG Proposal (1155 in the ICG). <b>Alan Greenberg: </b>Proposed reply to Question 2: Both descriptions are correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in paragraph ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer is clearly a substantial architectual and operational change, and is therefore subject to a review of the standing review committee and ultimately ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires consultation through an ICANN Public Comment Process.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD members/participants. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On PTI question #6: complete. no comments</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this out. Additional clarfications listed in action item. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with implementation. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is also recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person will be involved in process. </span></li></ul><p style="margin: 0px; font-size: 10.5px; font-family: Helvetica; min-height: 12px;"><br></p><p style="margin: 0px; font-size: 10.5px; font-family: Helvetica;"><b>Summary of current status on ICG questions</b></p><ul><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12</span></li></ul><div><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;">ACTIONS</span></div><ul><li><span style="color: rgb(4, 51, 255); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;"><b>Action</b>(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent to list (by Alan)</span></li><li><span style="color: rgb(4, 51, 255); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;"><b>Action</b>(staff): update question #2 per notes</span></li><li><span style="color: rgb(4, 51, 255); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;"><b>Action</b>(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other input received) where appropriate </span></li><li><span style="color: rgb(4, 51, 255); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;"><b>Action</b>(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" (perhaps by capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to structure and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be able to rely on other mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG."</span></li><li><span style="color: rgb(4, 51, 255); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;"><b>Action</b>(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board. </span></li><li><span style="color: rgb(4, 51, 255); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;"><b>Action</b>(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers</span></li><li><span style="color: rgb(4, 51, 255); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px;"><b>Action</b>(staff): staff to draft response to #13</span></li></ul></div><div><br></div><div>Best, </div><div>Grace</div></body></html>